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 near a Driving-While-Intoxicated (DWI) checkpoint for attempting to make a U-turn at an unsafe location, specifically near the crest of a hill. This action led to her being charged with possession of methamphetamine after she pled no contest, reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained from the stop (paras 2-3, 6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the stop of her vehicle was invalid due to an inadequate factual basis to establish reasonable suspicion, challenging the legality of the vehicle stop near a DWI checkpoint (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the stop was justified based on the Defendant's attempt to make a U-turn at an unsafe location, which provided an independent basis for reasonable suspicion, thus supporting the legality of the vehicle stop (paras 5-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the stop of the Defendant's vehicle near a DWI checkpoint was supported by reasonable suspicion under the guidelines addressing evasion of DWI checkpoints (para 3).
• Whether there was an independent basis for the stop of the Defendant's vehicle, justifying the denial of the motion to suppress (para 5).

Disposition

• The motion to suppress was properly denied, and the judgment and sentence entered after the Defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine were affirmed (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Megan P. Duffy, unanimously concluded that the stop of the Defendant's vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion. The Court decided not to address the Defendant's challenge regarding the factual basis for the stop under DWI checkpoint evasion case law, assuming arguendo that the Defendant's argument was correct. Instead, the Court found an independent basis for the stop, as the Defendant's attempted U-turn near the crest of a hill violated NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-323, which prohibits U-turns at such locations due to visibility concerns. Officer Dwayne Simpson's observation of the Defendant's actions provided the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The Court also noted that the officer's subjective belief or the fact that a citation for the specific violation was not issued did not affect the validity of the stop. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, supporting the denial of the motion to suppress based on these grounds (paras 4-9).