 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Apodaca v. State8/29/1994
HARTZ, Judge.
Licensee appeals the revocation of his driving privileges for ninety days, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-111(C) (Repl. Pamp. 1987) (revocation for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor). A hearing officer of the state motor vehicle division sustained the revocation. The district court affirmed after Licensee petitioned the court for review. Licensee contends that certain evidence introduced at his license revocation hearing was the product of an unconstitutional stop and therefore should have been suppressed. He also argues that the hearing officer violated his right to due process by impermissibly acting as an investigator during the hearing, rather than limiting herself to an adjudicatory role. We affirm.
FACTS
At the revocation hearing the arresting officer testified that he observed Licenses driving a motorcycle on Eubank Boulevard, a multi-lane street in Albuquerque. According to the officer, Licensee was weaving from the right side of his traffic lane to the left side in a continuous pendulum-type movement. In addition, Licensee's motorcycle was leaning from side to side during the weaving.
The officer admitted that the weaving did not cause him to suspect that License was driving while intoxicated or was committing any other driving infraction. He testified that he stopped Licensee because he was concerned for Licensee's welfare. He thought Licensee might be injured or sick, or that something else might be wrong. When he approached Licensee after the stop, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol and noticed that Licensee's eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred. At that point the officer required Licensee to perform several field-sobriety tests, all but one of which Licensee failed. Licensee was then taken to a police station where two breath-alcohol tests administered. The tests revealed blood-alcohol levels exceeding the statutory limit.
Discussion
Validity of Stop
Licensee contends that the stop that led to his arrest was unconstitutional because the officer had no reasonable suspicion that he had committed or was about to commit a crime. He points to the arresting officer's admission that he did not suspect Licensee was driving while intoxicated until after he stopped him and to the officer's testimony that Licensee did not commit any traffic infractions while the officer was observing him. We disagree with Licensee's contention that suspicion of a crime is the only basis upon which an officer may properly stop a moving vehicle.
This Court recently held that a police officer may stop a vehicle for a specific, articulable safety concern, even in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a violation of law has occurred or is occurring. ), cert. granted, N.M. , 871 P.2d 984 (1994). Such a stop is justified by the officer's role as a community caretaker. Id.; see State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 840 P.2d 511, 514 (Kan. 1992), overruled on other grounds by State v. Field, 252 Kan. 657, 847 P.2d 1280, 1286 (Kan. 1993); State v. Pinkham, 565 A.2d 318, 319 (Me. 1989); State v. Martinez, 260 N.J. Super. 75, 615 A.2d 279, 280-81 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992); State v. Marcello, 157 Vt. 657, 599 A.2d 357, 358 (Vt. 1991); cf. 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 7.4(f) (2d ed. 1987) (officers may enter a vehicle without a warrant or reasonable suspicion if there is reason to believe the occupant is in distress and needs assistance). The scope of any intrusion following the stop must be limited to those actions necessary to carry out the purposes of the stop, unless, as here, reasonable suspicion or probable cause arises. See
Page 1 2 3 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|