AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for DWI per se and a vehicle registration violation following a bench trial in the metropolitan court. The conviction was based on the officer's observations of the Defendant's physical state and performance during field sobriety tests, as well as breath test results indicating a blood alcohol content of .11. The Defendant argued that the officer lacked probable cause for arrest and that the breath test was improperly administered due to a failure to observe a required twenty-minute deprivation period, during which the Defendant burped, potentially contaminating the breath sample.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of DWI per se and a vehicle registration violation.
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's conviction on appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the arresting officer lacked probable cause for the DWI arrest and that the breath test results were unreliable due to improper administration, specifically failing to restart the twenty-minute deprivation period after the Defendant burped.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that probable cause for the arrest was established through the officer's observations and that the breath test was administered properly, with the results being reliable evidence of DWI per se.

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI.
• Whether the breath test was improperly admitted due to a failure to observe the required twenty-minute deprivation period.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for DWI per se and a vehicle registration violation.

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that probable cause for the Defendant's arrest was established by the officer's testimony regarding the Defendant's physical appearance and inability to perform field sobriety tests (para 2).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's argument regarding the breath test's reliability, noting that the Defendant provided no evidence to show how a burp could significantly affect the breath sample's alcohol content. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the regulation does not require proof that the Defendant did not burp during the deprivation period, and the trial court is entitled to weigh the evidence's reliability (para 3-4).
  The Court declined to follow out-of-state case law cited by the Defendant, instead relying on the plain language of the applicable regulation and existing case law, which does not support the Defendant's argument regarding the necessity of restarting the deprivation period after burping (para 4).