City of Farmington v. Scott, 35,431

Police stopped Defendant’s vehicle after an eyewitness reported that the perpetrators of a nearby armed robbery left in a car with matching plates; Defendant does not contest validity of the stop.
Officers detained Defendant in a patrol vehicle while they brought the eyewitness to the scene for identification; this initial detention lasted about 35 minutes.
The eyewitness failed to identify Defendant; officers then took statements from Defendant and his passenger (about ten minutes) and briefly conferred about the investigation.
After a short discussion, officers decided to release Defendant from the robbery inquiry but spent a minute or two deciding to initiate a DWI investigation instead.
During the encounter officers smelled alcohol on Defendant and observed signs consistent with intoxication (bloodshot, watery eyes); those observations prompted the DWI investigation, which led to arrest and conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the investigatory detention evolved into an unconstitutional de facto arrest	Stop/detention was reasonable and not an arrest; officers acted with diligence in pursuing identification	Detention became a de facto arrest due to length and conditions (patrol car detention) and lack of timely release	Court held detention through the identification effort (≈35 minutes) was permissible and not a de facto arrest because officers acted diligently and there were no unnecessary delays
Whether expanding the traffic stop to a DWI investigation was permissible	Officer observations (odor of alcohol, bloodshot/watery eyes) gave rise to reasonable suspicion to expand scope	Expansion was an improper fishing expedition and impermissible scope creep from robbery inquiry	Court held expansion to DWI was permissible when officers had reasonable suspicion of alcohol impairment based on observed indicia
Whether officers’ specific observations were sufficient for reasonable suspicion of DWI	Testimony about odor of alcohol and appearance of eyes supported an objective reasonable-suspicion finding	Observations were insufficiently specific and possibly tainted by decision already made to investigate DWI	Court held officers’ training/experience and the odor plus eye observations were sufficient to supply reasonable suspicion to investigate DWI

State v. Werner, 871 P.2d 971 (N.M. 1994) (patrol‑car detention can be a de facto arrest where probable cause exists and officers delay unreasonably)
State v. Robbs, 136 P.3d 570 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (35–40 minute detention while awaiting a canine unit was reasonable)
State v. Leyva, 250 P.3d 861 (N.M. 2011) (officer may expand and prolong a stop if reasonable suspicion of unrelated criminal activity arises; de minimis questioning after a stop is permissible)
State v. Williamson, 9 P.3d 70 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (officer may detain to investigate suspected impairment when reasonable and articulable suspicion of intoxication exists)
State v. Walters, 934 P.2d 282 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (odor of alcohol can supply reasonable suspicion to pursue a DWI investigation)
State v. Funderburg, 183 P.3d 922 (N.M. 2008) (continued detention may be reasonable as a graduated response to evolving circumstances)