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

• On April 7, 2012, in downtown Albuquerque, a police sergeant on bicycle patrol had to swerve to avoid a collision with a green Toyota SUV that turned in front of him. The sergeant observed the vehicle driving erratically, running stop signs and a red light, and reported its license plate and location to other officers. The vehicle was eventually stopped by police after continuing to drive despite police vehicles activating their emergency lights. The driver, identified at trial as the Defendant, exhibited slow responses and difficulty understanding instructions. Breath alcohol tests indicated a blood alcohol content of 0.13 (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court affirmed the metropolitan court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and upheld the conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and careless driving (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence used to establish reasonable suspicion was based on hearsay testimony; the State failed to prove the officer who detained the Defendant had reasonable suspicion; the evidence used to expand the scope of the stop was based on hearsay testimony, violating the Confrontation Clause; without the improperly admitted breath card, there was insufficient evidence for a DWI and careless driving conviction (para 10).
• Appellee: Contended that hearsay can establish reasonable suspicion for the purposes of admissibility; the collective knowledge of the officers justified the stop and detention of the Defendant; the rules of evidence do not apply to determinations of fact regarding admissibility, including motions to suppress; sufficient evidence existed to convict the Defendant of DWI and careless driving (paras 11, 13, 18, 20).

Legal Issues

• Whether hearsay testimony can establish reasonable suspicion for the purposes of admissibility in a motion to suppress.
• Whether the State must present testimony from the officer who physically detained the Defendant to prove reasonable suspicion.
• Whether the use of hearsay testimony to expand the scope of a stop violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for DWI and careless driving without the breath card (paras 10-20).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI and careless driving (para 22).

Reasons

• The court held that hearsay can be used to establish reasonable suspicion in determinations of fact regarding admissibility, including motions to suppress, as the rules of evidence do not apply to such determinations (para 11). The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the State was required to present testimony from the detaining officer to prove reasonable suspicion, citing the collective knowledge doctrine (para 18). The court also found that the Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by considering hearsay testimony in the decision to suppress evidence, as the rules of evidence do not apply to preliminary questions of fact governing admissibility (para 20). Finally, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of DWI and careless driving, as the arguments for excluding the breath card were rejected (para 21).