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 police officer after briefly crossing over a lane line and then moving the vehicle to the edge of another lane. The officer, believing any movement outside a vehicle's lane of travel constituted a violation, arrested the Defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI). The Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop, arguing the stop was unjustified.

Procedural History

• District Court of McKinley County, Robert A. Aragon, District Judge: Granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the vehicle stop.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to believe the Defendant had violated a traffic law, justifying the stop of Defendant's vehicle.
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the vehicle stop, warranting suppression of the evidence obtained as a result.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the vehicle stop.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

Reasons

• GARCIA, Judge, with KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and BUSTAMANTE, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found that the district court did not err in its decision to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop of Defendant's vehicle. The Court emphasized that the applicable statute, Section 66-7-317(A), requires not only that a vehicle must be driven within a single lane as nearly as practicable but also that any movement outside that lane must be done safely. The Court noted that the arresting officer's belief that any movement outside a vehicle's lane of travel constitutes a violation was a mistake of law, as it ignored the statute's safety component. The Court also highlighted that there was no evidence suggesting that the Defendant's movements affected any other traffic or could not be done safely (paras 1-11). The State's arguments on appeal, including the assertion that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on a potential violation of careless driving or could have stopped the Defendant under the community-caretaker doctrine, were not considered because they were not presented to the district court (paras 10-11).