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

• A police officer observed a vehicle failing to stop at a stop sign and upon stopping the vehicle, detected the odor of burnt marijuana from the vehicle and the driver, a child. The officer conducted field sobriety tests, which led to the child's arrest for DUI. The child was not advised of his constitutional rights before the sobriety tests or the blood test that followed the arrest (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County: Suppressed evidence obtained during the investigatory detention, including field sobriety test results and blood test results, due to failure to advise the child of constitutional rights (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the child's performance on field sobriety tests, the results of the blood test, and any consent by the child to submit to the blood test do not constitute statements or confessions under Section 32A-2-14(D) and therefore should not be suppressed (para 9).
• Child-Appellee: Contended that any statement or confession must be suppressed because the child was not advised of his constitutional rights as required, and that physical evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful questioning should also be suppressed (paras 6-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the child's performance on field sobriety tests, the results of the blood test, and the child's implied consent to the blood test constitute statements that must be suppressed under Section 32A-2-14(D) due to failure to advise the child of his constitutional rights (paras 9, 13-14).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order of suppression and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion (para 35).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the opinion, held that the child's responses during the field sobriety tests, results of the blood test, and implied consent to the blood test are not statements subject to suppression under Section 32A-2-14(D). The court reasoned that physical evidence such as blood, breath, and fingerprints, and nonverbal conduct during field sobriety tests do not constitute statements or confessions protected by the privilege against self-incrimination. Furthermore, the court determined that implied consent under the Implied Consent Act is not a statement requiring suppression. The court also addressed and rejected arguments based on the New Mexico Constitution's protections against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches and seizures, concluding that the protections did not extend to the physical evidence at issue in this case (paras 10-34).