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

• In September 2021, a New Mexico State Police officer initiated an investigatory stop after observing a car parked on a one-way street facing the wrong direction with its hood up. The Defendant was standing next to the car and informed the officer that his car lost power, requesting assistance to jump-start it. During the interaction, the Defendant admitted to drinking before the car lost power, and the officer noted the Defendant had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath and exhibited bloodshot and watery eyes. The officer then called for backup to conduct a DWI investigation. The Defendant was subsequently charged with DWI, driving the wrong way, and stopping, standing, or parking on a highway. The officer's lapel camera and microphone were not in use during the initial encounter, and no audio recording exists, though a video was captured by the dashboard camera (para 2).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: The court dismissed the State's criminal complaint against the Defendant, finding the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to expand the investigatory stop into a DWI investigation (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the metropolitan court erred by (1) misapplying an adverse inference under State v. Ware and (2) determining that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to expand the encounter into a DWI investigation (para 1).
• Defendant: Sought to suppress the officer’s testimony under Ware, arguing the audio was material to the defense and the officer’s failure to collect it was in bad faith. In the alternative, sought an adverse inference instruction allowing the jury to infer that the evidence not gathered would have been favorable to the Defendant (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court erred in granting an adverse inference from the officer’s failure to record the entirety of his interaction with the Defendant.
• Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to expand the investigatory stop into a DWI investigation.

Disposition

• The appellate court reversed the metropolitan court's order dismissing the State's criminal complaint against the Defendant, concluding that the officer did have reasonable suspicion to expand the encounter into a DWI investigation (para 1).

Reasons

• Per HENDERSON, J. (HANISEE, J., and YOHALEM, J., concurring):
  The appellate court found that the metropolitan court erred in applying an adverse inference at a pretrial hearing rather than at trial, as prescribed by State v. Ware. The court determined that the uncollected audio was material because it could potentially contain exculpatory evidence for the Defendant. However, the appellate court noted that the State failed to preserve the argument that the officer’s failure to collect audio was merely negligent and not grossly negligent, thus not challenging the metropolitan court's change of ruling (paras 8-13).
  Regarding reasonable suspicion, the appellate court disagreed with the metropolitan court's conclusion that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to expand the investigatory stop into a DWI investigation. The appellate court emphasized that the totality of the circumstances, including the Defendant's admission to drinking, the strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath, and his bloodshot and watery eyes, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion for a DWI investigation. The appellate court reversed the metropolitan court’s suppression of the officer’s testimony and its dismissal of the charges against the Defendant, remanding for further proceedings (paras 14-21).