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 of aggravated driving while intoxicated. The conviction stemmed from a traffic stop initiated based on information provided by an undercover officer who had observed the Defendant's conduct prior to the stop. The officer who actually conducted the stop did not testify at the trial.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop, contending that the absence of testimony from the stopping officer prevented the State from establishing reasonable suspicion for the stop (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop due to the stopping officer not testifying at trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Reasons

• Per James J. Wechsler, with Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Michael E. Vigil, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found the Defendant's arguments unconvincing and decided to affirm the conviction. The decision was based on the testimony of other officers at trial, particularly an undercover officer who had observed the Defendant's conduct and informed the stopping officer. The Court held that the undercover officer's observations provided sufficient reasonable suspicion for the stop, referencing State v. Ochoa for the principle that an officer may rely on another law enforcement officer's statement to form a reasonable suspicion of lawbreaking. The Court concluded that the district court's findings were not speculative but were based on the in-court testimony of the undercover officer, and the Defendant failed to demonstrate error on appeal due to the lack of authority challenging the district court's reliance on this testimony (paras 1-4).