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 June 28, 2009, during a patrol in Rio Rancho, Sergeant Kent observed Stephen Ryan (Driver) swerving his car onto a bike path and then back across the lane. After initiating a traffic stop, Kent noted Driver's watery, bloodshot eyes, the smell of alcohol, and slurred speech. During field sobriety tests, Driver exhibited balance issues and anxiety symptoms. Driver was arrested based on his performance during these tests. At the police station, Driver initially refused a breath test but later requested to take it, which was denied by Kent. The Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) sought to revoke Driver's license for refusal to take the breath test.

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County: Reversed the administrative revocation of Driver's license, finding the arrest unlawful and that Driver had recanted his refusal to take the breath test.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee-Petitioner (MVD): Argued that the district court erred in finding the arrest unlawful and that Driver had effectively recanted his refusal to take the breath test.
• Appellant-Respondent (Driver): Contended that the arrest was not lawful due to the premature calling of a tow truck and that he had recanted his refusal by offering to take the breath test after initially refusing.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining the arrest of Driver was unlawful based on the premature calling of a tow truck.
• Whether Driver effectively recanted his refusal to take the breath test by offering to take it after an initial refusal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order and remanded with directions to enter an order affirming the decision of MVD.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, with Judges James J. Wechsler and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found substantial evidence supporting the hearing officer's decision that the arrest was lawful and that Driver did not effectively recant his refusal to take the breath test. The court determined that the calling of a tow truck did not constitute an unlawful arrest and that Driver's later consent to take the breath test, coming eighty minutes after his initial refusal, did not cure his refusal under New Mexico law. The court emphasized that a conditional consent is considered a refusal and that the district court erred in its findings regarding the lawfulness of the arrest and the recantation of the breath test refusal.