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 observed by an officer crossing over lane markers on both sides of the road without any other vehicles around. This led to the officer stopping the Defendant's vehicle to investigate for DWI. The Defendant was subsequently cited for failure to maintain his lane and for DWI. The Defendant contested the stop, arguing there was no violation of the relevant traffic law and thus no reasonable suspicion for the stop.

Procedural History

• District Court of McKinley County, Robert A. Aragon, District Judge: The Defendant was convicted of failure to maintain his lane and DWI, first offense. The Defendant appealed to the district court for a de novo trial, where the conviction for failure to maintain his lane was vacated, but the DWI conviction was upheld.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in concluding that crossing/touching the lane markers created reasonable suspicion of impairment, contending there was no violation of Section 66-7-317(A) and thus no basis for the stop.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the Defendant's actions of crossing lane markers justified the stop for a DWI investigation, asserting that such behavior created reasonable suspicion of impairment.

Legal Issues

• Whether crossing/touching lane markers without creating a hazard constitutes a violation of Section 66-7-317(A) and justifies a stop for DWI investigation.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the stop.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Roderick T. Kennedy, J., concurring): The court found that while the Defendant's conviction for failing to maintain his lane was correctly vacated due to the absence of a hazard, the erratic behavior of crossing lane markers created reasonable suspicion of impairment, justifying the stop. The court distinguished this case from City of Farmington v. Fordyce, noting the Defendant's erratic driving behavior. The court concluded that the officer had probable cause to believe an offense was being committed, affirming the decision to deny the motion to suppress based on the officer's observations and a video tape confirming the Defendant's actions.