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 for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) following a conditional guilty plea, which reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appeal challenges the legality of the stop and detention by Officer Matt Wilcox, as well as the subsequent arrest without a warrant (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that Officer Wilcox did not have reasonable suspicion to stop and conduct an investigatory detention and lacked probable cause to arrest him without a warrant (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether Officer Wilcox had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant and conduct an investigatory detention.
• Whether Officer Wilcox had probable cause to arrest the Defendant without a warrant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, with Jonathan B. Sutin and M. Monica Zamora, Judges concurring, the court found that Officer Wilcox had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the Defendant based on the belief that the Defendant had thrown a rock at a victim. This suspicion was deemed sufficient for the stop and detention. Furthermore, the court concluded that probable cause existed for the Defendant's arrest on the charge of concealing his identity, as the information provided by the Defendant was not found on file despite multiple checks by Officer Wilcox. The exigency of the situation, given the inability to obtain a warrant or issue a summons without the Defendant's true identification, justified the arrest. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition was considered but did not successfully challenge the court's understanding of the facts or the application of the law. Speculative arguments presented by the Defendant were not supported by the record and were not grounds for reweighing evidence on appeal (paras 2-5).