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 convicted for trafficking a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and use or possession of drug paraphernalia following a conditional plea. The appeal centers around the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a stop by Officer Berdoza, who allegedly expanded the scope of the stop based solely on the Defendant's nervousness.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Concurred with the Court of Appeals' proposed summary reversal, indicating agreement that the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress.
• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop, contending that the expansion of the stop's scope by Officer Berdoza was constitutionally impermissible due to it being based solely on the Defendant's nervousness.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop, specifically questioning if the expansion of the stop's scope based solely on the Defendant's nervousness was constitutionally permissible.

Disposition

• The convictions for trafficking a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and use or possession of drug paraphernalia were reversed.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with concurrence from LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge: The Court of Appeals proposed to reverse the Defendant's convictions based on the district court's error in denying the motion to suppress. The State's concurrence with the proposed summary reversal and its decision not to file a memorandum in opposition were pivotal. The appellate court determined that Officer Berdoza's reliance solely on the Defendant's nervousness to justify the expansion of the stop's scope was constitutionally impermissible, leading to the reversal of the Defendant's convictions (para 1).