Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

You have a right to an independent blood alcohol test when you have been arrested for DWI/DUI in New Mexico. In the past, this was more theoretical than real due to the lack of availability of on the spot independent testing. This has now changed in Albuquerque with a new independent blood testing service, BATDRAW.

BATDRAW will show up 24/7 anywhere within Bernalillo County, and in many of the outlying areas. The organization will send out a certified phlebotomist to conduct the test. The test results are fully admissible in a DWI/DUI defense. The results are also admissible for the MVD license revocation hearing. The BATDRAW blood test is far more reliable than the breath alcohol test utilized by law enforcement which has a acceptable 10% error rate.

The test is free so long as you submit to the State's breath alcohol test If you refuse the State's breath alcohol test, you will be charged for the test. In addition, you will be responsible for all costs associated with getting the testing technician to court at trial.

Take the State's test, then take the BATDRAW test to get accurate results. Insist on the BATDRAW independent blood alcohol test. Be vocal and leave no doubt that you made the request. As seen in State v. Duarte, any doubt in your request for an independent blood alcohol test will likely be construed against you.

You have the right to an independent blood test. You should exercise it if there are any doubts in your mind regarding the results of the law enforcement result. You should most definitely use the service if your results are close to .08 or .16 due to the recognized 10% error rate in the breath test. Clearly, you do not want the test if you are under the limit as the rate of error in the breath alcohol tests swings both ways.

The exercise could prove purely academic anyway due to New Mexico law that allows drivers to be convicted at levels below the legal .08 level, under the "impaired to the slightest degree" standard. However, it is far better to be fighting the "impaired to the slightest degree" than the statutory presumptive impairment above .08. And, anything over .16 puts you at a severe disadvantage due to aggravated DWI/DUI charges for levels over .16. In addition, .08 or higher virtually guarantees a revocation of your license by MVD.

Put this number in your phone., 505.712.7180. Give to your friends and family. Hopefully, you will not need it, but if you do, you do!

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

New Mexico law allows a DWI/DUI suspect to request independent chemical testing. In fact, NMSA 66-8-109(B) requires that the officer inform the suspect of this right. The question arises what happens if the officer fails to offer the independent chemical test?

The law dictates that the breath alcohol score must be suppressed for failure to inform the DWI/DUI suspect of the right to independent chemical testing. The problem is in proving the failure of the officer to comply with the law.

As is often the case in DWI/DUI cases in New Mexico, the issue boils down to issues of credibility. Who is the court or jury to believe, the cop or the suspect? It is often a coin toss with the jury. As for the Court, it is clear that the presumptions are with the cop. This is so in the impaired to slightest degree, under the .08 limits DWI/DUI cases, where you are impaired if the cop says you are impaired. It is equally so in the advice of rights for independent chemical testing.

This presumption was made clear in the 2007 case of State v. Duarte. In that case, the officer videotaped the field sobriety tests. Presumably this same video would have carried evidence of the reading of the implied consent and the advice of rights for independent chemical testing. The cop lost the video. The Court made some interesting rulings allowing in testimony regarding the field sobriety tests despite the loss of the only real evidence of the suspect's performance.

Further, the suspect said that he was not informed of that right. The cop did not say he did inform him of that right. Instead, he said it was his general practice to read the advice of rights. Despite the loss of the video, again the only true evidence of the reading of those rights, and the officer's lack of recollection of the reading other than his general practice, the Court ruled in favor of the State and refused to exclude the breath alcohol results.

This case, like the under the limits DWI/DUI arrests on the impaired to the slightest degree standard, points to the real presumptions in DWI/DUI cases in New Mexico. Is there really a presumption of innocence when an officer need only opine that the suspect was impaired for a DWI/DUI conviction? Is there really any due process protection at all when as in this case the only tangible evidence of the officer's compliance with the law has been lost, and yet the officer is allowed to testify to what would have been on the video based general procedure?

The great majority of law enforcement officers are honest, competent and professional. Due process protects society against those that are not. New Mexico's DWI/DUI laws present a sliding scale of justice which is dependent upon the luck of the draw on the cop, the prosecutor and the judge. Fairness, justice and due process are situational. Is DWI/DUI such a threat to our society that it justifies the rebalancing of our system of justice?

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The Albuquerque Journal reports that New Mexico Senator Michael Sanchez has introduced Senate Bill 151 (SB 151) which will address two serious problems in New Mexico DWI/DUI enforcement: 1) under the limits DWI/DUI arrests on the impaired to the slightest degree standard, and 2) the arrest of drivers found sleeping in their vehicles while intoxicated. The latter will be addressed here with a follow up on "impaired to the slightest degree."

Senator Sanchez 's SB 151 would address the practice of arresting drivers who are asleep in their car by inserting language defining driving to mean only those situations where the "person is behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and causing the motor vehicle to move or exercising control over the movement of the vehicle. Exercising control over a motor vehicle alone, without any movement of the vehicle and with no immediate intent to move the vehicle, does not constitute driving." The current DWI/DUI enforcement practices and the law allow drivers to be arrested for sleeping while intoxicated under the theory that they are in control of the vehicle.

Those in opposition to the change in the law argue that a person sleeping his or her car could wake up and decide to drive. Sure, they could. Someone drunk and sleeping in bed could wake up and decide to drive. In fact, that person is probably just or more likely to decide to drive drunk. After all, the person that had the good sense to avoid driving by sleeping in their vehicle at least possesses the conscience or fear of arrest necessary to cause them to avoid driving. Why should it be presumed that they would exercise the good judgment to avoid driving while intoxicated when severely intoxicated then exercise less restraint as the effects of the alcohol begin to wear off?

The fact is that the policy of arresting drivers who are sleeping in their cars to avoid driving under the influence actively encourages them to engage in the very behavior New Mexico's DWI/DUI laws are meant to deter. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's law enforcement DWI Training materials, for every driver that is arrested for DWI, there are 500 to 2000 drunken drivers that go undetected. If this is so, and one must weigh the risks of getting arrested for sleeping in a vehicle in a public parking lot which are probably pretty high versus getting arrested for DWI which according to NHTSA are extremely low. Due to the severe consequences of a DWI/DUI conviction, an odds oriented driver would drive rather than sleep since driving carries at best according to NHTSA a 1/500 chance of detection. I for one would rather the person sleep off their intoxication before getting behind the wheel drunk and possibley endangering me, my family or other innocent drivers.

The policy of arresting people for trying to do the right thing is wrong on purely a gut level. It makes no sense to punish someone for making a responsible decision. More than that, it endangers the public by more or less forcing people to drive home rather than sleep off their intoxication. New Mexico's DWI/DUI law and policy is irresponsible and dangerous. I am happy to hear that Senator Sanchez is pushing this bill.

To show your support for the bill, contact Senator Sanchez or your own representative at http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/legislatorsearch.aspx.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The Albuquerque Journal reported today that a bill toughening DWI/DUI penalties for first offenders died in the New Mexico Senate yesterday. The bill was considered a top priority for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

The bill would have established mandatory jail time or community custody for first time DWI/DUI offenders. The bill would have required a minimum 3 day jail sentence or 30 day community custody for first time offenders. Community custody requires electronic monitoring (ankle bracelet) 24 hours a day for those in the program. Both jail time and community custody are very costly. These costs apparently derailed the bill.

Those in opposition to the bill pointed to the unfunded costs in the program. They also pointed to the strain the program would place on already overcrowded jails throughout New Mexico. Finally, at least one senator, Bernadette Sanchez of Albuquerque, addressed the problem of overreliance on penalties and too little emphasis on treatment.

There were 150 DWI/DUI fatalities in New Mexico in 2009. 70 percent of those were caused by first time offenders. Governor Richardson and others have argued that tougher penalties will act as a deterrent. Richardson first proposed the bill when a drunk driver crashed into a carload full of teens in the summer of 2009 killing 4 of the teenagers.

DWI/DUI is a very serious problem in New Mexico. 150 deaths is unacceptable. The real challenge is to address the problem in a manner that effectively reduces drinking and driving. The reality is that every DWI/DUI carries mandatory jail time. The DWI/DUI offender is arrested and jailed pending a first appearance. Often, the timing of the arrest over the weekend will carry 2 or more days in jail before the first hearing is set for release.

Mandatory jail time will likely have no greater deterrent value than the deterrents currently in place which include arrest, jail, courts costs, fines, counseling, probation, community service, loss of driving privileges and vehicle seizure among others. If this is not enough, the attorney fees can be financially crippling for some.

The penalties and costs of DWI/DUI are pretty staggering as the law currently stands. A new approach is needed beyond the customary call for stiffer jail time. What that approach would be remains to be seen.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Often times when drivers are charged with DWI/DUI in New Mexico, they have prior DWI/DUI convictions from other states. Many times, the charge in New Mexico will be to a DWI/DUI First Offense despite the prior conviction.

Those charged often believe that they were not charged with a subsequent DWI/DUI because the out of state conviction does not count against them. In reality, what typically has happened is that there has been no search of interstate criminal records at the time of the original filing of the complaint.

This does not mean that the complaint cannot be amended once the out of state DWI/DUI conviction(s) are discovered by the District Attorney. Therefore, if there is an out of state conviction for DWI/DUI, it will likely be discovered well before the trial date. If not, it will be discovered at sentencing and factored into the DWI/DUI sentencing where there is a significant amount of latitude allowed the judge.

The use of out of state DWI/DUI is allowed both by statute, NMSA 66-8-102(Q) and by case law, State v. Lewis. NMSA 66-8-102(Q) clearly allows for the use of out of state convictions for consideration of a charge as first or subsequent DWI/DUI. In addition, the New Mexico Court of Appeals determined in State v. Lewis that the use of out of state convictions for enhancement purposes is allowed under New Mexico law. The court ins State v. Lewis ruled that so long as the out of state DWI/DUI statute is substantially equivalent to NMSA 66-8-102, then the conviction can be used as a prior.

It is very important that you discuss your DWI/DUI history honestly with your attorney from the very first meeting. Prior convictions will almost always show at some point during the process. Hiding them from your attorney could severely impact the legal representation as the approaches for dealing with first time DWI/DUI and subsequent DWI/DUI can be very different particularly when it comes to consideration of plea offers. Surprises at trial are never good for you or your attorney. Surprises at sentencing can be extremely detrimental to your freedom.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

A recent article on KOB.com of Albuquerque addresses an important question, why would Albuquerque police officers arrest drivers for DWI/DUI at a breath alcohol level (BAC) of .04 when the legal limit is .08.

The answer that the writer provides is that "It's all about your performance, and it's up to the cops." You would hope as a citizen that the first part of the explanation is correct, that it is about your performance on the field sobriety tests. The problem is that the second part of the explanation is exactly right, it is entirely up to the cop.

The article also rightly points out that the law states that you may be arrested for DWI/DUI when your ability to drive is impaired to the slightest degree by alcohol. It is yet to be determined what precisely this means, "impaired to the slightest degree." The reality is that it is as the writer suggests up to the cop.

This is the problem and it is very serious problem. It is left to the police officer to determine or opine whether a driver's ability to drive is impaired to the slightest degree. The fact is that the field sobriety tests are susceptible to interpretation at best and outright falsification at worst. The turn on the walk and turn test is not performed just right. The heel and toe did not meet on the 5th, 7th and 9th step of the walk and turn. The driver could not keep his hands at his side during the one leg stand. The driver did not appear to understand or follow one of the many directions given during the fields sobriety tests. And the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test has potential for abuse at every single step of the process. There simply is no way to prove that the cop misconstrued or falsified the test results.

So what's the problem? Perhaps, the officer is under stress to meet DWI/DUI quotas. This is the most innocent offense. Worst case is that the level of subjectivity in these tests allows the officer to target particular kinds or races of people. There is no check on the officer's discretion. It is entirely up to the officer. And judges are under too much pressure to question the credibility of an officer. The prosecutor cannot dismiss a case that lacks merit. The same news outlet, and probably several others, that printed the article on why under the limits DWI/DUI might occur will print an article the morning following a dismissal of a DWI/DUI that attacks the judge, the prosecutor, and even the cop for not being tough enough on DWI/DUI offenders.

Impaired to the slightest degree has too much potential for abuse. There are far too many pressures on judges, prosecutors and police to get these convictions. Impaired to the slightest degree is not standard. What does it mean? It means whatever the cop says it means and that is it. The fact is that most are very surprised to hear that .08 is not the true standard. Citizens have a right to expect laws that are precisely drafted so that they can stay within the bounds of the law. The law should set forth a precise standard for DWI. It should not be left to the cop on the street. It is not fair to the cop and it is not fair to the citizen. There simply is no way to predict or plan for such a vaguely written law.

So why doesn't New Mexico just pass a law outlawing drinking and driving, period? What would happen to restaurants and bars? What would happen to tax revenue for the State? There is your answer. It is more cost effective to pass the burden on to the unlucky driver caught in the vagaries of New Mexico's DWI/DUI laws than to risk the loss of tax revenue with drafting a law that reflects the reality of DWI/DUI enforcement in New Mexico and particularly in Albuquerque where it may or may not be a crime to drink even a sip of alcohol and get behind the wheel.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

New Mexico Senator Tom Udall has introduced legislation that would require all states to implement ignition interlock programs modeled after New Mexico DWI program. New Mexico was the first state to require ignition interlock devices for all DWI/DUI offenders.

By law in New Mexico, a driver's license is automatically revoked by the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) for either driving at or above .08 breath alcohol level or for refusing the breath alcohol test. For first time offenders, the revocation period is up to one year. For those individuals who test at .08 or higher, the first time MVD revocation is for 6 months. For those that refuse the test, the revocation is for one year. For second and subsequent offenses, the revocation is for one year.

During the revocation period, drivers may obtain an interlock license. The interlock license allows the revoked driver to drive so long as the vehicle driven has an interlock license installed. An interlock device will not allow a vehicle to start until the driver has blown into the breath alcohol measurement device. Any detection of alcohol will disable the vehicle. Driving without the interlock is charged as driving on a revoked license which carries up to 1 year in jail.

In addition to the MVD license revocation, the Court will also impose a one year interlock requirement on those convicted of DWI. Often, the court ordered interlock period will extend well beyond the administrative period of revocation. The interlock device is ordered as a part of the probation ordered in all DWI/DUI convictions. Violation of this provision is considered a serious violation of probation which could result in revocation of probation and incarceration for the remainder of the sentence.

New Mexico's DWI laws are pretty stiff. Admittedly, the results have been a significant decrease in the levels of drinking and driving in the state. The Centers for Disease Control has determined that repeat offenses dropped by 73% where the device was in use. These results clearly indicate the success of the program.

On the other hand, New Mexico has taken DWI enforcement to the extreme. People are routinely arrested, particularly in Albuquerque, even when their breath alcohol scores are below .08, sometimes significantly below .08. In addition to arresting and charging drivers below the .08 legal limit, the New Mexico Courts will convict people when they have not even been driving as in the recent case where a veteran was charged with DWI in Albuquerque while sleeping in his vehicle.

If Udall's bill passes, states could lose federal transportation funding for failure to adopt and enforce the act. Let's hope it does not become the race for federal funds that has led to the overzealous and completely irrational enforcement DWI laws that has occurred in New Mexico.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

DWI/DUI is taken very seriously in New Mexico. Strict DWI/DUI enforcement is intended to deter drunk driving. As such, the laws are very strictly enforced throughout New Mexico and the consequences of a DWI/DUI conviction can be severe. In fact, Albuquerque police go even further arresting and charging people for DWI even when they have not been driving.

Due to the strict enforcement of DWI/DUI laws, people arrested for a 1st time DWI first want to know whether they will be going to jail. The next question often relates to their driver's license. Finally, they typically want or need to know the other penalties and fines associated with DWI/DUI in New Mexico.

For a first time offender, the worst case outcome is generally sentencing to the First Offender Program. As part of the First Offender Program, the defendant's sentencing is deferred for one year. The defendant is placed on supervised probation during this one year period. In addition, following conditions are imposed on the defendant as part of the First Offender Program:

1. DWI School,

2. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Screening,

3. Counseling and Treatment if recommended following screening,

4. Attendance of the Victim Impact Panel,

5. Random drug and alcohol testing if deemed necessary by probation following screening,

6. No consumption or possession of alcohol or illegal drugs,

7. Installation of an ignition interlock device on the defendant's vehicle for 1 year (this allows the defendant to continue to drive while on probation),

8. Community service which is typically 24 hours,

9. Payment of Court Costs, and

10. Payment of probation costs (these are often waived by the Court).

This is the standard sentence for a simple first time DWI/DUI in New Mexico. This sentence is imposed whether or not the defendant enters a plea or loses at trial. Thus, many simple first DWI's will go to trial since there is no difference in the penalties between a conviction on a plea versus conviction at trial.

The decision of whether or not to go to trial is made more difficult in an Aggravated DWI case. Conviction on an Aggravated DWI carries mandatory 48 hour jail time. Aggravated DWI is charged in cases where the driver's breath alcohol score is .16 or higher, the driver refused the breath alcohol test, or there was an accident involving alcohol.

Because of the mandatory 48 jail time, many DWI defendants do not want to risk a conviction of Aggravated DWI at trial. The result is that many, if not most, Aggravated DWI cases plea to a simple first DWI prior to trial which allows the defendant to enter the First Offender Program.

So getting back to the opening, the question is whether a first time DWI defendant will go to jail, and whether he or she will be able to drive following conviction on a DWI. The answer to the first question is that it is very unlikely under the current state of New Mexico law that a first time DWI defendant will go to jail unless he or she is convicted on an Aggravated DWI. The answer to the second question is yes, the defendant will be allowed to drive with an interlock license.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Most people are surprised to learn they can be charged with DWI/DUI even when below the limits of .08. In fact, under the limits DWI charges in Albuquerque are quite common. In fact, people are arrested for DWI even when they are not driving.

A recent story in the Albuquerque Journal told the story of a Vietnam veteran, Fidencio Francia, who was arrested for DWI despite the fact that he never started his car. Instead, he knew that he had had too much to drink so he wisely chose not to drive. Rather than drive, he chose to sleep it off in his car. He was arrested and charged for DWI for sleeping in his car after consuming alcohol.

Albuquerque District Attorneys argue that such behavior puts the city at risk. They argue that folks like Mr. Francia are not using the car as a shelter but instead are in control of a "4000 pound bullet." The judge in the case, Judge Fitzwater argued that the law is well settled that one does not have to drive to be convicted of Driving While Intoxicated. Counter-intuitive, is it not?

In fact, the New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled that it is unnecessary to drive to get a DWI/DUI. The court found that one need only be control of the car. The definition of control is very loose. In State v. Sims, the Court found that the person was in control of the car even though the keys were not even in the ignition, but in the passenger seat. And the defendant was asleep. Yet he was still in control of the car and presumably a threat to the public with his 4000 pound bullet.

What is the lesson here? Don't drink, if you do drink, don't get near a car, if it is freezing outside, you have to make a hard choice between dying in the cold, driving drunk, or getting a DWI for sleeping in your car.

There is no reason or rationality in the prosecution of DWI/DUI in Albuquerque. The policy of prosecuting people for not driving drunk is certain to end in disastrous consequences as some will decide the risk of driving drunk is no worse than the risk of not driving drunk. The only real question is when such a disaster will strike and whether the District Attorney and the Albuquerque DWI Unit will accept responsibility for the ill-advised policy of prosecuting people for not driving drunk. Meeting DWI quotas is I suppose far more important that actual public safety.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving a DWI arrest based upon an anonymous tip. Albuquerque and Bernalillo County officials appear unconcerned with the Court's ruling. Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White stated "Believe me, I can tell you when a person's impaired."

The case itself involved an anonymous tip where the driver was pulled over despite the fact that the officer had not observed any indications in the driver's driving behavior indicating DWI/DUI.

The fact is a stop like the one in the Virginia case would plainly violate the requirement of reasonable suspicion for a DWI/DUI stop. Without the reasonable suspicion requirement, officers would be free to pull drivers over without any reason whatsoever. The hazards and possible abuses are clear allowing officers to pull over drivers for countless illegitimate reasons.

Darren White states further that New Mexico law protects the innocent driver who has swerved in a traffic lane, but is not under the influence. What Sheriff White fails to appreciate is that many innocent drivers may be subject to illegal stops based upon ill motivated anonymous tips. Little imagination is required to understand the many possible motivations that might lead to an illegitimate anonymous tip.

In fact, there is little protection for the innocent driver as Sheriff White suggests. Instead, a stop lacking reasonable suspicion results in a gross violation of privacy, and the right against unlawful search and seizure. The result is that many innocent drivers can be pulled over and subjected to the stressful, embarrassing and humiliating battery of DWI tests so that they must prove they are not under the influence to a police officer who may already be convinced or otherwise biased toward a finding of DWI/DUI.

In fact, New Mexico law, which thankfully applies to Albuquerque Police and Bernalillo County Sheriffs despite Sheriff Whites apparent belief to the contrary, requires that the stopping officer actually observe driving that indicates DWI/DUI. An anonymous tip is not sufficient for a stop. Of course, it takes very little effort on the part of a determined police officer to find a reason for a stop. With the rash of under the limits DWI/DUI arrests in Albuquerque, and the recent revelation of DWI/DUI quotas for Albuquerque Police Officers, this requirement offers little real protection or comfort for Albuquerque drivers rendering the right of privacy and protection against unlawful search & seizure in our cars meaningless.

A recent article in the Albuquerque Journal points out a DWI Quota for police officers on the Albuquerque Police Department's DWI Unit. DWI officers are required to make 2 DWI/DUI arrests each shift. This quota may be contributing to the rash of below the limits DWI arrests in Albuquerque.

Most citizens believe that the standard for DWI is a breath alcohol level of .08 or higher. This belief is rightfully justified as .08 has traditionally been the standard for a DWI arrest. In fact, many well-intentioned citizens have bought their own breath alcohol measurement devices so that they can insure that they don't violate the law.

There is a disturbing trend in Albuquerque where drivers are being arrested for breath alcohol levels well below the .08 limit. There are cases of drivers be arrested at .03 and .04. The law actually allows this through the extremely vague alternative standard to the .08 standard of "impaired to the slightest degree." NMSA 66-8-102(A) states: "it is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive a vehicle within this state."

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has reaffirmed this loose and vague standard in State v. Pickett. The Court in Pickett cited approvingly the language in State v. Sanchez stated that a driver is under the influence of alcohol "if as a result of drinking [the driver ] was less able to the slightest degree...to handle a vehicle..." The court coined this standard as "impaired to the slightest degree" as established in State v. Neal.

This trend seemed driven by an overzealous DWI policy where drivers were arrested for the mere presence of alcohol in their system. It seemed also to be related to the desire for Albuquerque DWI Unit Officers to maximize their over-time hours and over-time pay.

The DWI quota is a new and even more disturbing incentive for illegitimate DWI/DUI arrests. Clearly, the Albuquerque DWI Unit officers are pressured into making illegitimate arrests as a result of the quota. Their job performance and continued assignment to the Albuquerque DWI Unit depend on meeting these quotas.

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in City of Las Cruces v. Rogers that the City of Las Cruces has no authority to regulate DWI/DUI on private property under the City's DWI/DUI Code. In order to so regulate drinking and driving on private property, the City would have to gain written consent from the property owner. In the alternative, the driver should be charged under the New Mexico DWI/DUI Statute which is customarily the case. The driver cannot be charged for DWI/DUI on private property under the City Code.

The facts of Rogers are remarkable. The defendant was in a parking lot of a convenience store where she had purchased cigarettes. The police officer had followed her into the parking lot on the suspicion that she had been drinking and driving. As the defendant was preparing to drive away, the officer stopped her while she was still in the parking lot. The officer administered field sobriety tests which Rogers failed. Consequently, she was arrested and charged with DWI/DUI.

The Municipal Court dismissed the DWI/DUI Complaint. The city appealed to District Court which ruled that pursuant to City of Rio Rancho v. Young, and Section NMSA §3-49-1(O), the City could not enforce its traffic code on private property absent a showing of express written consent by the owner of the property. The case wound its way up to the Supreme Court through the Court of Appeals which upheld the District Court ruling.

The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed with the lower court rulings again citing Young and NMSA §3-49-1(O). The Court made the distinction between violations of state statutes and municipal statutes. Las Cruces had failed to charge the defendant under the State statute NMSA 66-8-102. Instead, the defendant was charged under the city ordinance which the Court agreed could not be done without the written consent of the property owner.

Many clients are very surprised when they are charged with DWI/DUI when their blood alcohol level is below the legal standard of .08. In fact, the police regularly arrest these drivers and the District Attorneys, particularly in Albuquerque, routinely prosecutes these "below the limits" cases. The District Attorney in Albuquerque brings DWI/DUI cases for drivers at .03 or .04. This practice is shocking to the driver who thought that he or she was behaving responsibly.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has struck one more blow against these well-intentioned drivers in State v. Pickett. NMSA 66-8-102(A) states: "it is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor to drive a vehicle within this state." The Court cited approvingly the language in State v. Sanchez which stated "a person is under the influence ... if as a result of drinking [the driver ] was less able to the slightest degree...to handle a vehicle..." The court referred to this standard as "impaired to the slightest degree," a term established in State v. Neal.

The Court stated that in order to convict the Defendant, the State needed only prove that the defendant was less able to the "slightest degree" to safely operate a vehicle. Remarkably, the court allowed in otherwise inadmissible evidence for the determination of impairment to the slightest degree. Though the breath test scores could not be admitted, the test was allowed to be used to show there was alcohol in the defendant's system.

Essentially, an officer will be able to make the determination of impairment to the slightest degree at his or her discretion. The officer may conduct field sobriety tests which are horribly subjective, and susceptible to abuse. Then on the basis of what the officer determines weak fields sobriety tests, the officer may then take the blood alcohol tests. The catch for the driver is that if you refuse, your license is automatically revoked even if you win your trial.

Once the officer determines there is alcohol in your system, and that you performed poorly on the field sobriety tests, he may arrest you and charge you with DWI/DUI. This absolute discretion on the part of the officer is the basis for the below the limits cases that we are now regularly seeing in court at levels as low as .03. And the District Attorney is prosecuting these with the same level of zeal as an aggravated DWI/DUI.

The problem is clear. I think history has shown that it is not a good idea for civil rights or liberty to allow police officers absolute discretion. The potential for abuse is too great. And though the great majority of police officers are honest and conscientious, there are bad apples as in any profession. A dishonest mechanic is just painful on the wallet. Police officers have the power to destroy lives on what amounts to the most vague possible standard that could be drafted for DWI/DUI.

The New Mexico Supreme Court in State v. Ochoa clarified the rights of privacy in a car. The New Mexico constitution allows for New Mexico courts to expand on the rights against unlawful search & seizure afforded under federal law.

Under federal law, there is a lower expectation of privacy once a person enters into an automobile. The justification for the lower level of privacy in an automobile under federal law is that the inherent mobility of an automobile creates greater need for an immediate stop to prevent the loss of evidence.

New Mexico acknowledges the reasoning but rejects the conclusions of the U.S Supreme Court in Whren. Instead, Ochoa states that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable. The State bears the burden of proving the stop and the ensuing search were reasonable.

The Court in Ochoa explains that the greater protection from unreasonable search & seizure in an automobile is a distinct characteristic of the laws of New Mexico. Ochoa explicitly rejects the suggestion under Whren that a person's expectation of privacy is lessened in a car.

Finally, the court stated that though there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, the same standard requiring exigent circumstances to conduct a warrantless search are present in a car as in a person's home. Exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search exist only where delay in obtaining a warrant will jeopardize the legitimate interests of law enforcement.

A mere hunch as present in Ochoa is simply not enough.

The Supreme Court of California announced that the Supreme Court of California, the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts would be closing on the third Wednesday of each month. The court closures are the result of California's ongoing budget crisis.

It is estimated that this move will save the state $94.3 million for the State. The amount of projected cost savings suggests the huge costs of running a Court system on a daily basis. The closures will amount to only 12 days of closure per year, putting the daily costs at $7.86 million. These cutbacks will cause ever greater strain on an already burdened court system.

Though the Court system in New Mexico is a small fraction of the size of California's, the costs of the court system is enormous. In addition, the state's budget is only a small fraction of the size of California's. So in relative terms, New Mexico may be facing an even greater burden.

The New Mexico Courts have already begun throughout the state to cut back on the hours for administrative services such as the clerk's offices. The courtrooms have yet to be impacted but it seems that they will at some point.

Yet while the Courts are facing ever more challenging budgets, the practices in the criminal justice system have yet to respond to the looming crisis. Police and prosecutors continue to prosecute DWI/DUI cases that are below the legal limit. Police and prosecutors are regularly bringing cases at .04 to .06 breath alcohol scores, sometimes even below .04. There is a similar policy among some prosecutor's offices of relentlessly pursuing domestic violence actions even when there is a total lack of foundation or merit. These practices, in addition to being manifestly unjust, place a huge burden on the Courts and the taxpayers of New Mexico.

Perhaps the upside of the economic downturn will be that the police and prosecutors will be forced to more honestly and fairly evaluate the merits of their cases before burdening the Courts with frivolous criminal proceedings. Perhaps, police will be less enthusiastic about pursuing these cases when overtime pay is capped and there is no financial incentive to pursue these cases. Perhaps prosecutors will be less inclined to pursue these cases as their own budgets begin to shrink. Perhaps the Courts themselves will hold the prosecutors and police more accountable to the taxpayers and be quicker to dismiss meritless actions. We can hope.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
www.collinsattorneys.com