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 convicted for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (first offense) and for failing to obey a stop sign. The convictions stemmed from a traffic stop where it was alleged that the Defendant did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred by not suppressing evidence obtained from what he claimed was a pretextual stop of his vehicle. He also contended that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, as evidence, including a video recording and testimony from two passengers, suggested he had complied with the stop sign.
• Appellee: The State, through its representatives, opposed the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement and argued in favor of affirming the convictions, implying that the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop.
• Whether the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add a new issue regarding the pretextual stop of his vehicle should be granted.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The Defendant's convictions were affirmed.

Reasons

• The panel of judges, consisting of CELIA FOY CASTILLO, JAMES J. WECHSLER, and ROBERT E. ROBLES, provided the reasoning for their decision. The court found that the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement was timely but lacked necessary details such as how the issue was preserved in district court and why it was not raised initially. The court also noted that the analysis for the Defendant's original issue would similarly apply to a pretextual stop analysis, leading to the denial of the motion to amend (MIO 2). Regarding the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, the court deferred to the district court's ability to resolve factual questions and evaluate witness credibility. It concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop based on the evidence presented, including the video recording and testimony, which did not conclusively prove that the Defendant had come to a complete stop at the stop sign. The appellate court emphasized its role is not to reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder, supporting its decision to affirm the district court's ruling (MIO 6-7, 11).