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 stopped by a deputy for straddling the center line on State Highway 264, which led to his arrest for Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and/or Drugs (DWI), first offense. The Defendant entered a plea agreement, retaining the right to appeal the suppression issue on the grounds of no reasonable suspicion for the initial traffic stop (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of McKinley County, Grant L. Foutz, District Judge: Entered a judgment and sentence reflecting the plea agreement and denied Defendant's motion to suppress based on the legality of the traffic stop (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to demonstrate reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop, as crossing a lane line is not a per se violation of the statute concerning driving on roadways laned for traffic. Requested reversal of the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and remand with instructions to permit withdrawal of his plea (paras 1, 6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the deputy had reasonable suspicion to make the stop under the careless driving statute, thus justifying the initial traffic stop and subsequent arrest of the Defendant (para 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's vehicle based on the observed driving behavior, thereby justifying the traffic stop under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and remanded for further proceedings to enforce the original judgment entered by the magistrate court (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and M. Monica Zamora concurring, found that the deputy had reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop based on the Defendant's driving behavior, which could be considered a violation of the careless driving statute. The deputy's observation of the Defendant straddling the center line for several feet and quickly steering back into the lane was deemed severe and unusual, raising suspicion of careless driving. The Court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, the deputy's particularized suspicion justified the traffic stop, regardless of whether the behavior was a per se violation of the lane statute (paras 3-12).