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 charged with aggravated DWI after being detained by a deputy following a 911 call from a woman who had been in a relationship with the Defendant. She reported that the Defendant was banging on her door and sliding notes under it. Based on this information, the deputy, upon arrival at the scene, identified and stopped the Defendant's vehicle as he was leaving the apartment complex, leading to his arrest for aggravated DWI (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court: Denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the detention (para 2).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop and questioned whether the legality of his seizure should be judged by the higher probable cause standard (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the deputy had a reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant based on the information received from the 911 call, which was sufficient for an investigatory detention (paras 5, 10-12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop of the Defendant.
• Whether the legality of Defendant’s seizure should be judged by the higher probable cause standard.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's order, thereby upholding the denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his detention (para 15).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, concurring):
  The court found that Deputy Weeks had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant based on the totality of the circumstances, including the specific information provided by the 911 caller and the deputy's observations upon arrival at the scene (paras 4-5, 10-12).
  The court distinguished this case from State v. Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046, by noting that in the present case, the deputy had specific, identifying information about the Defendant and his vehicle, which was not the case in Garcia (para 11).
  The court concluded that the investigatory detention of the Defendant was supported by a constitutionally sufficient reasonable suspicion, justifying the denial of the motion to suppress (para 13).
  The court declined to address the Defendant's argument regarding the applicability of the probable cause standard, as the issue on appeal was the investigatory stop, not the arrest (para 14).