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 September 2009, Officer Brian Kinley observed a vehicle swerving and traveling under the speed limit. Upon stopping the vehicle, he encountered the driver, Candace S., a minor, who exhibited signs of alcohol consumption but denied drinking. After failing field sobriety tests (FSTs) and a portable breath test indicating a blood alcohol content significantly above the legal limit, Candace was arrested and subjected to further breath testing at a police station, which confirmed the initial results (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County: Denied Candace S.'s motion to suppress the results of her FSTs and breath alcohol tests, leading to her conditional plea while reserving the right to appeal the suppression motion's denial (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that FSTs are searches requiring a warrant, an exception to the warrant requirement, or voluntary consent. Contended that the officer's failure to advise her of her rights rendered her consent to the FSTs and breath tests involuntary (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Agreed that statements made by Candace in response to questioning should be suppressed but opposed the suppression of the FST and breath test results (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether FSTs are searches that must be supported by a warrant, an exception to the warrant requirement, or voluntary consent (para 1).
• Whether a minor must be advised of the right to withhold consent to FSTs and breath tests for such tests to be admissible (paras 1, 12, 21).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Candace’s motion to suppress the results of the FSTs and breath alcohol tests (paras 2, 31).

Reasons

• CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court concluded that FSTs must be supported by reasonable suspicion rather than a warrant or consent. It found no requirement for an officer to advise a minor of the right to withhold consent to FSTs and determined that failure to advise a minor of the right to remain silent does not render FSTs inadmissible. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to administer FSTs to Candace based on her erratic driving and the smell of alcohol. It also determined that the officer's failure to advise Candace of her rights did not affect the admissibility of the FSTs and breath test results because her performance on the FSTs did not constitute statements subject to suppression under the Children’s Code. The court rejected the argument that the results of the portable breath test tainted the subsequent Intoxilyzer breath tests, as the officer had probable cause to arrest Candace for DWI based on her performance on the FSTs, her erratic driving, and the odor of alcohol (paras 2, 7-30).