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

• A citizen reported a dark green passenger car swerving on the road, providing a partial license plate number. Sergeant Kalcich, upon receiving the information, conducted a search that led him to Defendant's address. Upon arrival, he found a car matching the description and initiated a "knock and talk" with Defendant, who was later seized for investigation of driving under the influence (DUI). Defendant was convicted in magistrate court but successfully moved to suppress evidence in district court, arguing the initial seizure lacked reasonable suspicion (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court: Defendant convicted of aggravated DUI (third offense) (para 1).
• District Court of San Juan County: Granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence related to her arrest (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the arresting officer permissibly engaged in a "knock and talk" and had reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee: Argued that Sergeant Kalcich did not have reasonable suspicion when he seized her, making the evidence obtained inadmissible (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the "knock and talk" procedure used by Sergeant Kalcich was permissible under the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution (para 6).
• Whether Sergeant Kalcich had reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant for investigation of DUI (para 12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, finding that the "knock and talk" was permissible and that Sergeant Kalcich had reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion (para 15).

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation, with IVES, Judge, and HENDERSON, Judge, concurring: The court found that the "knock and talk" procedure was constitutionally permissible and did not require reasonable suspicion, as it was based on the consensual nature of the conversation between Sergeant Kalcich and Defendant. The court also determined that Sergeant Kalcich had reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant based on the citizen's report and his observations, including the condition of Defendant and the vehicle matching the description provided by the citizen. The district court's findings regarding the color of Defendant's vehicle were deemed unsupported by substantial evidence, and the court declined to consider the warmth of the car's hood as indicative of recent driving (paras 5-14).