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

• On November 3, 2010, an Albuquerque Police Department Officer observed the Defendant driving above the speed limit and with expired registration. The officer, part of the DWI unit and required to meet arrest quotas, stopped the Defendant. The Defendant argued the stop was pretextual, aimed at investigating DWI due to her departure from a nearby brewery, despite conceding to the traffic violations (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Christina P. Argyres, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence supporting her DWI conviction.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued the stop was pretextual, aiming to investigate DWI due to her departure from a brewery, despite acknowledging traffic violations. Contended the officer's actions were part of a broader pattern of targeting drivers leaving downtown establishments (paras 2-5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained the stop was justified based on observed traffic violations, and the subsequent DWI investigation was warranted based on probable cause developed during the stop. Argued the officer's presence in the area and actions were part of legitimate law enforcement activities targeting traffic safety and DWI enforcement (paras 7, 13-20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the traffic stop of the Defendant by a DWI unit officer, who observed traffic violations, was pretextual and aimed at investigating DWI without reasonable suspicion (paras 11-20).

Disposition

• The district court's affirmation of the metropolitan court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was upheld (para 21).

Reasons

• The Court, per J. Miles Hanisee, with Linda M. Vanzi and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, found substantial evidence supporting the metropolitan court's conclusion that the stop was not pretextual. The Court determined that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant for traffic violations and that the totality of circumstances did not indicate a pretextual motive to investigate DWI. The Court noted the officer's testimony about his duties and the practice of giving warnings to sober drivers, contrasting it with the Defendant's and another witness's experiences, but ultimately found the evidence did not prove the stop was pretextual. The Court emphasized the distinction between legitimate traffic enforcement and pretextual stops, affirming the lower courts' rulings based on the evidence presented (paras 13-20).