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
- Analoggrotto Does anyone seriously listen to this?
- Thomas Same here....but keep in mind that EVs are already much more efficient than ICE vehicles. They need to catch up in all the other areas you mentioned.
- Analoggrotto It's great to see TTAC kicking up the best for their #1 corporate sponsor. Keep up the good work guys.
- John66ny Title about self driving cars, linked podcast about headlight restoration. Some relationship?
- Jeff JMII--If I did not get my Maverick my next choice was a Santa Cruz. They are different but then they are both compact pickups the only real compact pickups on the market. I am glad to hear that the Santa Cruz will have knobs and buttons on it for 2025 it would be good if they offered a hybrid as well. When I looked at both trucks it was less about brand loyalty and more about price, size, and features. I have owned 2 gm made trucks in the past and liked both but gm does not make a true compact truck and neither does Ram, Toyota, or Nissan. The Maverick was the only Ford product that I wanted. If I wanted a larger truck I would have kept either my 99 S-10 extended cab with a 2.2 I-4 5 speed or my 08 Isuzu I-370 4 x 4 with the 3.7 I-5, tow package, heated leather seats, and other niceties and it road like a luxury vehicle. I believe the demand is there for other manufacturers to make compact pickups. The proposed hybrid Toyota Stout would be a great truck. Subaru has experience making small trucks and they could make a very competitive compact truck and Subaru has a great all wheel drive system. Chevy has a great compact pickup offered in South America called the Montana which gm could make in North America and offered in the US and Canada. Ram has a great little compact truck offered in South America as well. Compact trucks are a great vehicle for those who want an open bed for hauling but what a smaller more affordable efficient practical vehicle.
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?