State v. Hager, 36,041

Defendant (Joseph Hager) entered a conditional no-contest plea in metropolitan court to DWI; appellate review was on the record in district court and then to this Court of Appeals.
Defendant reserved the right to appeal certain issues, including a claim that the traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion and that the arrest lacked probable cause.
At the scene, officer observed Defendant driving fast in a parking lot (audible over a speed hump), smelled alcohol, and Defendant admitted to drinking a beer.
Officer noted Defendant had “dragged” speech, bloodshot watery eyes, and performed poorly on three field sobriety tests (FSTs).
Defendant argued contrary facts (normal driving/walking/talking; uncertainty whether stop was for speeding or a faulty license-plate light; detached retina might affect balance) and challenged probable cause for arrest.
The district court found the totality of observations provided probable cause to arrest; the Court of Appeals affirmed and declined to review the unpreserved stop challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion	Stop was valid (officer observed driving behavior justifying stop)	Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; factual ambiguity (speeding vs. faulty plate light)	Not preserved on appeal; Court declines to review
Whether officer had probable cause to arrest for DWI	Officer had probable cause based on odor, admission, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, poor FST performance	Probable cause lacking given conflicting/contradictory evidence of normal driving and walking, and medical condition affecting balance	Affirmed: totality of observations objectively reasonable to conclude slight impairment; probable cause existed
Whether appellate process provided adequate multi-judge review	State explains procedure: calendar notice, defendant response, then three-judge panel review	Defendant suggested inadequate appellate scrutiny when opinion relies on district court memorandum	Court explained the internal process and confirmed three-judge panel review; no relief warranted
Whether courts should reweigh evidence on appeal	State: appellate court defers to factfinder on credibility and weight	Defendant asks appellate court to resolve conflicts in evidence in his favor	Court: will not reweigh or resolve credibility; conflicts do not undermine probable cause finding

State v. Granillo-Macias, 143 N.M. 455, 176 P.3d 1187 (court upheld probable cause based on smell of alcohol, lack of balance, and FST performance)
State v. Salas, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (appellate courts should not resolve credibility or reweigh evidence)
State v. Morgan, 382 P.3d 981 (preservation and reservation rules require timely objection before reservation on appeal)
State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (preservation requires timely, specific objection to apprize trial court and obtain ruling)