State v. Hall
10 N.M. 446
N.M. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan. 20, 2012, Hall was stopped at a planned Bernalillo County DWI checkpoint on Central Ave.; officers followed a written tactical plan and Sergeant Lecompte supervised the operation.
- Sergeant Perea contacted Hall, smelled alcohol, asked whether he had been drinking (Hall admitted to one beer an hour earlier), performed a seated HGN and then full FSTs, and arrested Hall for DWI.
- Hall consented to breath testing in the on‑site BATmobile; after a 20‑minute deprivation period he provided two Intoxilyzer 8000 samples showing .10/.10 breath alcohol.
- Metro court found the checkpoint constitutional, admitted the breath results, and convicted Hall of per se DWI (.08+). The district court affirmed on appeal.
- This Court upheld the checkpoint’s constitutionality but held the metro court abused its discretion admitting the breath results without properly resolving a challenge to the machine’s annual proficiency testing; remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of checkpoint | Checkpoint complied substantially with Betancourt factors (supervision, signage, location, limited initial contact, publicity) and was reasonable | Checkpoint unsafe (bridge location), location unreasonable, insufficient advance publicity, officer discretion not sufficiently constrained | Checkpoint constitutional; Betancourt factors substantially complied with (safety, location, discretion issue resolved by existence of reasonable suspicion) |
| Officer deviation from tact plan / discretionary stops | Deviation (seated HGN, extra conversation) was minor; officer obtained reasonable suspicion (odor, admission), so further investigation justified | Deviation from the script expanded scope of stop and violated Betancourt constraint on discretion | Deviation permissible because reasonable suspicion existed before/at time of deviation; Duarte distinguished because there was already reasonable suspicion |
| Admissibility of breath results — SLD proficiency testing | State: machine displayed certification sticker; proficiency testing language in current SLD regulation uses "should," so proficiency samples are not mandatory | Defendant: SLD records subpoena show no available proficiency test records for the machine/year, undermining threshold certification showing | Metro court erred: proficiency testing is a mandatory, continuing accuracy requirement despite wording; trial court abused discretion by admitting results without resolving the proficiency‑test challenge; remand for factual determination |
| Twenty‑minute deprivation period | State: testimony established deprivation period was observed (Hall remained with officers) | Defendant questioned compliance (officer briefly left) | Deprivation period satisfied by preponderance of evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for per se DWI | Breath result .10/.10 and other observations supported conviction | Challenge to reliability based on missing proficiency records and deprivation issue | Conviction supported by sufficient evidence, but admission error requires new trial (evidence aside, breath admissibility unresolved) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bates, 120 N.M. 457, 902 P.2d 1060 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (checkpoint is a seizure; reasonableness analysis required)
- City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt, 105 N.M. 655, 735 P.2d 1161 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (established eight Betancourt factors for checkpoint reasonableness)
- State v. Martinez, 141 N.M. 713, 160 P.3d 894 (N.M. 2007) (threshold showing of SLD certification required to admit breath test results)
- State v. Duarte, 140 N.M. 930, 149 P.3d 1027 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (deviation from checkpoint script evaluated by whether it unreasonably expanded intrusion; careful when deviation occurs before reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Willie, 146 N.M. 481, 212 P.3d 369 (N.M. 2009) (deprivation period may be satisfied without continuous observation if restraint makes consumption unlikely)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1979) (seizure must be based on objective facts or carried out under a plan with neutral, explicit limits)
- State v. King, 291 P.3d 160 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (Intoxilyzer reading is not conclusive; reliability may be challenged)
- State v. Hobbs, 366 P.3d 304 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (interpreting current SLD regulations and recognizing extensive continuing certification requirements for breath instruments)