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

• In the early morning hours of May 19, 2012, a police officer observed the Defendant driving a car one car length behind a motorcycle on Broadway towards Lomas in Albuquerque. The officer deemed this distance neither "prudent" nor "reasonable," initiating a traffic stop. Upon stopping the Defendant, the officer noted signs of intoxication. The Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol and failed various sobriety tests. Breathalyzer results showed a blood alcohol content of .10 and .09, leading to charges for driving under the influence and following too closely (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the statute for following too closely is unconstitutionally vague, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, and the district court erred in admitting breath test results without evidence the testing equipment was approved by the Scientific Laboratory Division (paras 5-6, 13, 15).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the statute is not vague, the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop, and the breath test results were admissible as the equipment used was approved (paras 6-10, 12, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether Section 66-7-318 is unconstitutionally vague.
• Whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting the results of the breath tests administered to the Defendant (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress and its admission of the results of the Defendant’s breath test into evidence. The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 66-7-318 was rejected (para 16).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge: Concluded that Section 66-7-318 is not unconstitutionally vague as it provides sufficient notice of the prohibited conduct and does not encourage arbitrary enforcement. Found that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop based on the Defendant's driving behavior. Upheld the district court's decision to admit the breath test results, referencing the court's decision in State v. Hobbs, which found compliance with the Scientific Laboratory Division's approval requirements for breath test equipment (paras 6-15).
  Linda M. Vanzi, Judge: Concurred with Judge Hanisee.
  Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge (specially concurring): Agreed with the majority on the statute's clarity and the officer's reasonable suspicion but criticized the reliance on State v. Hobbs for the admissibility of the breath test results. Kennedy argued for a more nuanced understanding of the regulations ensuring the accuracy of breath test equipment, emphasizing the importance of calibration and the use of approved equipment (paras 18-28).