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 driving while intoxicated. She entered a conditional guilty plea, contingent upon the appeal of the denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop of her vehicle. The Defendant argued that the stop was unconstitutional.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, finding the stop constitutional (N/A).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's decision.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the stop of her vehicle was unconstitutional, citing City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt. On appeal, contended that the metro court should have evaluated the reasonableness of the entire crime scene perimeter, not just the specific roadblock.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Responded that the perimeter was not subject to Betancourt requirements and was justified by exigent circumstances. Argued that the roadblock, and by extension the perimeter, was reasonable.

Legal Issues

• Whether the stop of Defendant's vehicle was unconstitutional under City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt.
• Whether the metro court erred in not considering the reasonableness of the entire crime scene perimeter under Betancourt.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's affirmance of the metro court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress.

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring):
  The Court noted that the Defendant did not challenge the metro court's ruling that the roadblock itself was reasonable (para 3).
  The Court declined to review the Defendant's argument regarding the reasonableness of the entire perimeter due to lack of supporting authority and inadequate development of the argument (para 3).
  The Court concluded that the Defendant did not meet her burden to demonstrate error on appeal, as she did not argue any factual error in the Court's notice of proposed disposition and cited an out-of-jurisdiction case that was contrary to her position (para 4).