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

• After midnight in Farmington, New Mexico, Officer Hunter Weaver observed a car driven by Defendant Joseph Kanizar commit what he believed were three traffic violations. Upon stopping the vehicle, Officer Weaver detected a strong odor of alcoholic beverages emanating from the car. Subsequently, Defendant submitted to field sobriety tests, leading to his arrest for DUI (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the traffic stop violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures, as he did not commit the alleged traffic violations. Therefore, the evidence of intoxication collected during the stop should be suppressed (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the traffic stop violated the Defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures.
• Whether the evidence of the Defendant's intoxication collected during the traffic stop should be suppressed due to the alleged violation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of intoxication collected during the traffic stop (para 16).

Reasons

• Per BOGARDUS, J., concurred by VARGAS, J., and ATTREP, J.:
  The Court of Appeals found that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The decision was based on substantial evidence supporting the finding that Defendant committed at least one traffic violation, specifically making a wide turn after leaving an intersection, which violated Section 66-7-322(A). This violation provided Officer Weaver with reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The Court emphasized that the denial of the motion to suppress was proper because the stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. The Court also noted that it did not need to consider whether there was reasonable suspicion of DUI, as the stop was justified based on the observed traffic violation alone (paras 5-15).