State v. Cordova, 35,920

Defendant Matthew Cordova was convicted in metropolitan court of DWI and failure to maintain lane; the district court affirmed on the record and Cordova appealed.
Officer followed Cordova’s vehicle ~15–30 yards behind and observed Cordova cross the yellow centerline, return to the lane, then cross the right dotted line with both passenger-side tires.
Officer described traffic as moderate to heavy at the time of the observed lane crossings.
Cordova moved to suppress evidence, arguing the traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion because his lane deviations did not affect other traffic and therefore did not violate the lane-maintenance statute.
The district court denied suppression and sustained the conviction; the Court of Appeals issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm and, after Cordova’s memorandum in opposition, affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion for failure to maintain lane	Officer’s observations of lane crossings while following 15–30 yards behind constituted a lane-maintenance violation and thus reasonable suspicion	Lane deviations did not affect other traffic and therefore did not constitute a violation or justify the stop	Affirmed: Officer had reasonable suspicion; crossings while an officer followed closely in moderate/heavy traffic satisfied § 66-7-317(A) and supported the stop

State v. Jason L., 2 P.3d 856 (N.M. 2000) (defines reasonable suspicion as particularized suspicion based on all circumstances)
State v. Hubble, 206 P.3d 579 (N.M. 2009) (officer must have specific articulable facts and rational inferences to justify suspicion)
State v. Maes, 255 P.3d 314 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for motions to suppress; mixed question of fact and law)
State v. Pacheco, 193 P.3d 587 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (on appeal view facts in light most favorable to prevailing party for suppression rulings)
State v. Salas, 321 P.3d 965 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (holding an officer driving behind a defendant can be considered affected by lane crossings)
State v. Apodaca, 887 P.2d 756 (N.M. 1994) (evidentiary sufficiency standard for convictions)