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 stopped by a police officer for speeding at approximately 12:55 a.m. During the stop, the officer observed signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, and an open container of beer in the vehicle. The Defendant admitted to drinking two beers and exhibited difficulty with balance and coordination. Field sobriety tests were conducted, but the officer did not follow the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) guidelines for individuals over 65 years old, as the Defendant was 67 at the time (paras 2-3, 6-8).
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court: The Defendant pled guilty to DWI (first offense), possession of an open container, and speeding.
- District Court: The Defendant appealed de novo. The speeding charge was dismissed, but the Defendant was found guilty of DWI and possession of an open container (paras 2-3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the arresting officer lacked probable cause for the DWI arrest and that the breath alcohol test (BAT) results should have been excluded due to non-compliance with applicable regulations (paras 3, 9, 22).
- State: Contended that the officer had sufficient probable cause based on observations and evidence, and that the BAT results were admissible under the applicable regulations and case law (paras 9, 22-23).
Legal Issues
- Did the arresting officer have probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI?
- Was the breath alcohol test (BAT) properly admitted into evidence?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the Defendant’s convictions for DWI and possession of an open container (para 38).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Robles JJ. concurring):
Probable Cause: The Court found that the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI. The officer’s observations, including the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, stumbling, and the Defendant’s admission to drinking, were sufficient to support the arrest. The district court properly discounted the results of certain field sobriety tests due to the officer’s failure to follow NHTSA guidelines but relied on other evidence to establish probable cause (paras 9-21).
Admission of BAT: The Court held that the BAT results were properly admitted. The officer complied with the applicable regulations by ensuring the Defendant had not eaten, drunk, or smoked for at least 20 minutes before the test. The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that continuous observation was required, citing the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Willie, which allows compliance to be established through various means (paras 22-37).
Conclusion: The Court concluded that the district court did not err in its findings and affirmed the convictions (para 38).