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 a first offense DWI following a bench trial in metropolitan court. The conviction was based on the Defendant's apprehension at a roadblock, which he argued was unconstitutionally located to target patrons of a specific establishment, TD's, and lacked sufficient advance publicity.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Brett R. Loveless, District Judge, affirming the Defendant's DWI conviction from a bench trial in metropolitan court.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the roadblock was unconstitutionally located at an unreasonable location targeting patrons of TD's and that there was insufficient advance publicity about the roadblock.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the constitutionality and reasonableness of the roadblock's location and the sufficiency of its advance publicity, citing safety factors, traffic flow, crash data, lighting, terrain, and past successful DWI roadblocks at the location.

Legal Issues

• Whether the location of the roadblock was unconstitutionally unreasonable for targeting patrons of TD's.
• Whether there was insufficient advance publicity about the roadblock, rendering it unconstitutional.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the Defendant's arguments regarding the roadblock's location and the sufficiency of its advance publicity unpersuasive. It held that the Defendant did not demonstrate how being a patron at TD's qualified him as a member of a protected class or that the roadblock's location was chosen with discriminatory intent. The Court noted that Sergeant Cottrell considered various non-discriminatory factors in selecting the roadblock's location, such as safety, traffic flow, and past success in DWI apprehensions, which did not indicate any intent to target a specific group of people, including patrons of TD's. Regarding the advance publicity, the Court agreed with the district court's assessment that Sergeant Cottrell's efforts to notify the media about the roadblock were sufficient and that any issues with the email's virus warning or lack of follow-up were for the fact finder to weigh. The Court concluded that the roadblock satisfied the legal standards for location and advance publicity, affirming the Defendant's conviction.