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 trafficking by possession with intent to distribute and aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The convictions followed after the district court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop, where the Defendant was observed swerving onto the shoulder of the road and across the center, double-yellow lines multiple times (para 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge, February 4, 2016: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the traffic stop, leading to the Defendant's conditional guilty plea convictions.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the traffic stop for failure to maintain his traffic lane was not supported by reasonable suspicion and claimed the stop was pretextual. The Defendant also contended that it was impracticable to stay in the lane on that portion of the road, and the deputy's observations were not corroborated by video evidence (paras 1, 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the deputy had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop based on observations of the Defendant swerving onto the shoulder and across the center lines multiple times. Argued that the stop was not pretextual and was justified based on the observed traffic violations (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the traffic stop for failure to maintain the traffic lane was supported by reasonable suspicion.
• Whether the traffic stop was pretextual.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress (para 6).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring): The Court reviewed the motion to suppress as involving a mixed question of fact and law, examining the factual basis for substantial evidence and the legal question de novo (para 2). It was determined that the deputy had reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop based on observations of the Defendant's vehicle swerving, which justified the investigatory stop even if the Defendant could not ultimately be convicted of the offense observed (para 4). Regarding the pretext argument, the Court found that the Defendant did not meet the burden of proof to show the stop was pretextual based on the totality of the circumstances. The deputy's failure to follow standard operating procedures by not recording the encounter did not substantiate a claim of pretext (para 5).