New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Phone Tip DUI Conviction
The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday expanded the ability of police to jail suspects for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) by allowing arrests to be made solely based on third-party tips. The ruling was handed down two weeks after the same court had relaxed DUI arrest rules so that motorists sleeping off a night of drinking in their automobiles would not be hit with the same penalty as if they had driven away ( read decision).
On December 22, 2007, Marcos Martinez was taken into custody for drunk driving in the city of Santa Fe not because an officer saw him commit a crime, but because someone who works at a mall called in a tip. Santa Fe Police Sergeant Troy Baker responded to the call which alleged that a man was staggering in the DeVargas Mall parking lot, eventually driving away in a van. The caller had provided a license plate, so Baker went to the van owner’s home to investigate. Inside the home, Martinez was clearly drunk and unlocked the door when Baker knocked. Baker entered and arrested Martinez.
A district court found the arrest unlawful under the common law “misdemeanor arrest rule” that states a suspect may only be arrested for a misdemeanor that is committed in an officer’s presence. The rule does not apply to felonies.
“Under the common law rules for warrantless arrests, there is an inherent balance between public safety and a suspect’s constitutional rights,” Patricio M. Serna explained in the unanimous decision. “Because felonies are a greater concern with respect to public safety, officers are granted more latitude when conducting investigations of such crimes. Conversely, since less severe crimes (misdemeanors) do not threaten public safety to the level of felonies, a warrantless arrest of a suspected misdemeanant cannot be made unless the arresting officer personally observes the offense.”
The court then decided that although the legislature had designated first-time DUI to be a misdemeanor and not a felony, it would rescind the common law tradition and create a new category — a misdemeanor that is not a “minor crime.”
“Given the compelling public interest in eradicating DWI occurrences and the potentially deadly consequences, the crime of DWI should be treated as a felony for purposes of warrantless arrests,” Serna wrote. “Although a DWI offender who has had less than three convictions would only be guilty of a misdemeanor, such a classification makes no difference in the severity of the offense’s consequences, nor does it dilute the public’s concern.”
The court added that it was important to avoid requiring a warrant before attempting to arrest a suspect not seen driving because that individual might later drive a car.
“In addition to the effect on the evidence, there is also a risk that during the time period in which the officer is obtaining a warrant, a suspect may get into his or her car and drive away, endangering both himself or herself and the public at large,” Serna wrote. “Such a risk is untenable given the strong public interest in deterring the crime of DWI…. Instead, the warrantless arrest of one suspected of committing DWI is valid when supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances.”
A copy of the decision is available in a 30k PDF file at the source link below.
New Mexico v. Martinez (Supreme Court, State of New Mexico, 6/24/2010)
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
More by The Newspaper
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Ajla My understanding is that the 5 and 7-Series cater almost exclusively to the Chinese market and they sell them here just so they don't look weak against Mercedes and Audi.
- EBFlex Interesting. We are told there is insatiable demand for EVs yet here is another major manufacturer pivoting away from EV manufacturing and going to hybrid. Did these manufacturers finally realize that the government lied to them and that consumers really don’t want EVs?
- Kwik_Shift_Pro4X What's worse than a Malibu?
- MaintenanceCosts The current Malibu is poorly packaged; there's far more room inside a Camry or Accord, even though the exterior footprint is similar. It doesn't have any standout attributes to balance out the poor packaging. I won't miss it. But it is regrettable that none of our US-based carmakers will be selling an ordinary sedan in their home market.
- Jkross22 You can tell these companies are phoning these big sedans in. Tech isn't luxury. Hard to figure out isn't luxury.This looks terrible, there are a lot of screens, there's a lot to get used to and it's not that powerful. BMW gave up on this car along time ago. The nesting doll approach used to work when all of their cars were phenomenal. It doesn't work when there's nothing to aspire to with this brand, which is where they are today. Just had seen an A8 - prior generation before the current. What a sharp looking car. I didn't like how they drove, but they were beautifully designed. The current LS is a dog. The new A8 is ok, but the interior is a disaster, the Mercedes is peak gaudy and arguably Genesis gets closest to what these all should be, although it's no looker either.
Comments
Join the conversation
Awesome. So now if some neighbor decides to hate me, all they have to do is wait for me to walk into the house with a case of beer and a friend or two, give it an hour, and then make a call saying they saw me drive my car piss-drunk. The cop comes over, and if I managed to finish 3 beers by then, I'm busted. " Villager: ... Well, we did do the nose. Sir Bedevere: The nose? Villager: And the hat. But she is a witch! Villagers: A witch, a witch, burn her! Sir Bedevere: Did you dress her up like this? Villager: ... Um ... Yes ... no ... a bit ... yes... she has got a wart! " You might think this is all funny and that we don't do this kind of stuff... anymore. Only we keep hunting "witches" over, and over, and over. History teaches us that it doesn't teach us anything.
Not common, but it did happen. I was on the jury. The cost of merely a DUI arrest, and defense and court costs, to the accused as well as the State are reason enough. Do impound fees, bail and attorney costs get refunded if you win?