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 in magistrate court for driving under the influence (DWI) and failure to maintain a traffic lane. She appealed to the district court, filing a motion to suppress all evidence from her traffic stop, arguing it was an unreasonable search and seizure. During the evidentiary hearing, conflicting testimonies arose between Officer Terrence Toledo and the Defendant and her husband. The State attempted to introduce a dash camera recording to support the officer's testimony but faced technical difficulties in playing the recording, leading to the district court's denial of the State's request for additional time to resolve these issues (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court: Convicted the Defendant of DWI and failure to maintain a traffic lane.
• District Court of McKinley County, Grant L. Foutz, District Judge: Granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the dash camera recording due to technical difficulties and by denying a continuance to resolve these issues (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellee: Challenged the State's argument on the basis that it was not raised in its docketing statement and contended that the district court's decision to suppress the evidence was correct (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court properly granted the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the State's request for a continuance to address technical difficulties in presenting the dash camera recording (paras 1, 4-5).

Disposition

• The district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress is affirmed (para 12).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael E. Vigil authoring the opinion and Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State's request for a continuance to address technical difficulties with the dash camera recording. The appellate court reasoned that the State did not demonstrate how a continuance would resolve the technical issues or how long it would take. Additionally, the State's inability to play the recording was due to its own preparation failures. The appellate court also dismissed the State's argument that the exclusion of the video recording was prejudicial, noting the lack of authority supporting the assertion that a court must consider unavailable evidence in a motion to suppress. The appellate court declined to consider unpublished opinions cited by the State for illustrative purposes, adhering to the principle that unpublished opinions should not influence their decision (paras 4-11).