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

• During a random patrol in an Albuquerque neighborhood, an officer observed two vehicles stopped in the middle of a street, facing opposite directions, appearing to interact with each other. As the officer approached, both vehicles departed. The officer followed one vehicle, driven by the Defendant, observing it drive left of center multiple times before initiating a traffic stop. During the stop, the Defendant consented to a vehicle search, leading to the discovery of cocaine under the front passenger seat (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge: Granted Defendant Cesar Nunez-Terrazas' motion to suppress evidence seized during the traffic stop, concluding the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion based on two observed traffic offenses: obstructing traffic and failure to maintain a traffic lane (paras 3, 6).
• Defendant-Appellee (Cesar Nunez-Terrazas): Contended there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop, arguing the vehicle did not obstruct traffic under relevant ordinances and laws, and that the law regarding driving left of center did not apply as the roads were unmarked (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding that the traffic stop of Defendant’s vehicle was not supported by reasonable suspicion (para 9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during the traffic stop (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Michael E. Vigil concurring, found that the district court did not err in its conclusion. The appellate court agreed that the State failed to establish reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop based on the alleged traffic violations. Specifically, the court noted that the statutes cited by the State regarding obstructing traffic did not apply to the circumstances of the stop, as it occurred in a residential area, not outside of a business or residence district as required by the statutes. Additionally, the court found that conflicting testimony regarding whether the Defendant’s vehicle crossed left of center was resolved in favor of the Defendant by the district court, which was within its discretion as the fact-finder. The appellate court also dismissed the State's argument on appeal regarding a different statute not preserved for review and noted the district court's discretion in determining witness credibility (paras 10-20).