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 arrested for DWI after an officer observed several indicia of intoxication, including bloodshot, watery eyes, the odor of alcohol, an admission of having consumed alcohol, and poor performance on field sobriety tests (para 3).

Procedural History

• Metro Court: Granted Defendant's motion to suppress (para 1).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Reversed the metro court's order granting the motion to suppress (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the officer lacked probable cause for arrest, contending that some observed clues were minor and there were alternative explanations for the Defendant's behavior (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI based on observed indicia of intoxication (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's reversal of the metro court's order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress (para 6).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with JONATHAN B. SUTIN and JULIE J. VARGAS concurring, the Court found that the officer's observations of indicia of intoxication were sufficient to satisfy the probable cause requirement for arrest. The Court referenced similar cases where similar evidence was deemed sufficient for probable cause. The Defendant's arguments that the evidence was minor or could be explained otherwise did not diminish their capacity to support probable cause. The Court emphasized that the metro court's findings on the credibility of the arresting officer and the indicia of intoxication were not in dispute, but the application of law to those facts was reviewed de novo. The appellate court concluded that the officer's observations justified the arrest, affirming the district court's decision (paras 3-6).