New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Phone Tip DUI Conviction

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

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]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 17 comments
  • Alex_rashev Alex_rashev on Jun 29, 2010

    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.

    • Danman75 Danman75 on Jun 29, 2010

      Yes, we call all imagine scenarios where, under the New Mexico Supreme Court's new rule, a person might be mistakenly arrested for DWI. But seriously, how realistic are these scenarios? Does anyone really think it's common for somebody to falsely tell the police that you've been drinking and driving, and then for the police to come to your home JUST as your getting drunk at home??? I think a far more typical scenario is this: a 911 dispatcher receives several calls from frantic witnesses reporting that a driver has been seen driving erratically for miles. The witnesses give the 911 dispatcher the driver's license plate number and the make and model of the car. The police arrive at the driver's home, where they find a car matching the same make and model parked on the driveway. The hood is warm. The police then speak with the car's owner, who is obviously drunk out of his mind. Now, let's say the owner denies he had been driving, and instead claims that he drank all his beer at home. Now, under the old rule, the police would not be able to arrest him for DWI because the driving was not done in the presence of the police officers. Under the new rule, the police would be able to arrest him. Now, whether there's enough evidence to CONVICT the owner of DWI is another matter entirely. But doesn't it make sense that, in light of the eyewitnesses' reports, the police should be able to at least ARREST the guy, notwithstanding the fact that the actual driving did not occur in the police officers' presence?

  • Nikita Nikita on Jun 30, 2010

    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?

  • Ronin It's one thing to stay tried and true to loyal past customers; you'll ensure a stream of revenue from your installed base- maybe every several years or so.It's another to attract net-new customers, who are dazzled by so many other attractive offerings that have more cargo capacity than that high-floored 4-Runner bed, and are not so scrunched in scrunchy front seats.Like with the FJ Cruiser: don't bother to update it, thereby saving money while explaining customers like it that way, all the way into oblivion. Not recognizing some customers like to actually have right rear visibility in their SUVs.
  • MaintenanceCosts It's not a Benz or a Jag / it's a 5-0 with a rag /And I don't wanna brag / but I could never be stag
  • 3-On-The-Tree Son has a 2016 Mustang GT 5.0 and I have a 2009 C6 Corvette LS3 6spd. And on paper they are pretty close.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Same as the Land Cruiser, emissions. I have a 1985 FJ60 Land Cruiser and it’s a beast off-roading.
  • CanadaCraig I would like for this anniversary special to be a bare-bones Plain-Jane model offered in Dynasty Green and Vintage Burgundy.
Next