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 stopped at a DWI checkpoint on Central Avenue in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and subsequently arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) after failing standardized field sobriety tests (FSTs) and a breath test, which indicated a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The Defendant challenged the constitutionality of the checkpoint, the admissibility of the breath test results, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Found the checkpoint constitutional and admitted the breath test results, convicting the Defendant of per se DWI (para 5).
• District Court of Bernalillo County, Stan Whitaker, District Judge: Affirmed the metro court's sentencing order and filed a memorandum opinion.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the sobriety checkpoint was unconstitutional, the breath test results were improperly admitted, and the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction (para 1).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the checkpoint was constitutional, the breath test results were properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the DWI checkpoint at which the Defendant was stopped was constitutional.
• Whether the metro court erred in admitting the Defendant’s breath test results.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Disposition

• The court concluded the checkpoint was constitutional but found the metro court erred in admitting the Defendant's breath test results. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to this error, while also finding the evidence otherwise sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction (para 1).

Reasons

• The court, led by Judge J. MILES HANISEE with concurrence from Judges MICHAEL E. VIGIL and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, provided the following reasons for their decision:
  Constitutionality of the Checkpoint: The court found the checkpoint constitutional, substantially complying with the required factors for reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment and New Mexico law (paras 8-21).
  Admissibility of Breath Test Results: The court determined the metro court abused its discretion by admitting the breath test results without proper consideration of whether the Intoxilyzer 8000 used for testing was accurately certified, specifically regarding the annual proficiency tests (paras 22-30).
  Sufficiency of Evidence: Despite the issue with the breath test results' admissibility, the court found the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for per se DWI, based on the observed facts and the Defendant's performance on FSTs (paras 33-34).