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 after a bench trial. The conviction was based on a traffic stop initiated because a deputy believed the Defendant was driving without illuminated headlights. Despite testimony from a passenger that the headlights were on, the metropolitan court found in favor of the deputy's observation.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge: Affirmed the bench trial conviction for DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the metropolitan court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the stop of his vehicle was not supported by reasonable suspicion, contending the stop was based on the deputy’s mistaken belief regarding a headlight violation.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the Plaintiff-Appellee argued in favor of the legality of the traffic stop and the subsequent DWI conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress based on the assertion that the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment affirming the Defendant's bench trial conviction for DWI.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, with CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring, found that the metropolitan court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress. The decision was based on the deputy's testimony, which was deemed to provide reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop due to the observed lack of illuminated headlights. The Court considered the deputy's observation of objective facts, such as not seeing the left headlight illuminated and seeing the taillights illuminate, as sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion. The Court also noted that even if the deputy was mistaken, a mistake of fact could still provide objective grounds for reasonable suspicion, thus affirming the lower court's decision (paras 1-5).