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 DWI (1st offense) following a conditional plea that reserved the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. The Defendant argued that the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because his vehicle did not leave its lane and there was no evidence of oncoming cars swerving to avoid his vehicle as per the video evidence and timeline provided by the defense. However, the officer testified that the stop was initiated based on a tip and observed behaviors including heavy weaving and oncoming vehicles swerving, which were not visible in the video due to the positioning of the police car (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of DWI (1st offense) and denied the motion to suppress evidence obtained from the traffic stop.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was no reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop as the Defendant’s car did not leave its lane and the video evidence did not show oncoming cars swerving to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle (paras 1-2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the traffic stop was justified based on a tip and the officer's observations of the Defendant's heavy weaving and oncoming vehicles swerving to avoid the Defendant’s car, which established reasonable suspicion (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop that led to the Defendant's DWI conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to affirm the metropolitan court’s denial of the motion to suppress and upheld the Defendant’s conviction for DWI (1st offense) (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring): The Court held that the metropolitan judge, as the fact finder at the suppression hearing, was entitled to determine the credibility of the officer’s testimony over the Defendant’s version of events. The Court found that the officer’s testimony about the tip from Drunkbusters, the Defendant’s heavy weaving, and the observation of oncoming vehicles swerving provided sufficient reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-114 (1978), regulating careless driving. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the stop was justified based on reasonable suspicion of a traffic law violation (paras 2-4).