State v. Madrid, 34,763

On July 2, 2012, APD Officer John Kelly stopped Selina Madrid after observing her roll through a stop sign at Oak Street and Tijeras Avenue without coming to a complete stop.
Officer Kelly approached, requested license/registration/insurance, smelled alcohol, identified himself as DWI unit, and administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test; Madrid was arrested and charged with DWI and traffic offenses.
At the suppression hearing Officer Kelly testified he monitored that intersection because it is dangerous and that enforcement of traffic laws (including stop-sign violations) fell within his duties while on DWI saturation patrol.
Defense suggested the stop was pretextual and a de facto sobriety checkpoint and questioned Kelly about many prior stops at that intersection; defense did not introduce records or additional witnesses.
The metropolitan court found Kelly had reasonable suspicion to stop Madrid for the stop-sign violation and, viewing the totality of circumstances, concluded the stop was not pretextual. The court explicitly declined to address whether reasonable suspicion of DWI arose before the HGN.
Madrid entered a conditional guilty plea reserving appeal only on the pretext suppression denial; the district court and this Court affirmed the denial as to pretext and declined to review the checkpoint and scope arguments because she failed to reserve those issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop was pretextual	State: Officer observed a stop-sign violation that provided reasonable suspicion to stop	Madrid: Officer used the stop sign as a pretext to investigate DWI (a fishing-hole practice)	Held: Not pretextual — reasonable suspicion existed and totality of circumstances (Ochoa factors) do not show pretext; affirmed
Whether the stop sign functioned as a de facto sobriety checkpoint	State: No evidence of systematic roadblock or stopping without suspicion	Madrid: Officer and others habitually used the spot as a sobriety checkpoint (pattern of stops)	Held: Not addressed on appeal — Madrid failed to reserve this issue in her conditional plea
Whether officer impermissibly expanded the scope of the initial stop	State: Officer’s actions (ID, explanation, HGN after odor detection) were consistent with procedures	Madrid: Officer expanded the stop to conduct DWI investigation beyond traffic enforcement	Held: Not addressed on appeal — Madrid failed to reserve this issue in her conditional plea

State v. Ochoa, 146 N.M. 32, 206 P.3d 143 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (framework and multi-factor Ochoa test for evaluating pretextual stops)
State v. Gonzales, 150 N.M. 74, 257 P.3d 894 (N.M. 2011) (three-step analysis allocating burdens for pretext claims)
State v. Ketelson, 150 N.M. 137, 257 P.3d 957 (N.M. 2011) (standard of review for mixed questions in suppression appeals)
State v. Leyva, 149 N.M. 435, 250 P.3d 861 (N.M. 2011) (appellate review deference to trial court factual findings on suppression)
State v. Hubble, 146 N.M. 70, 206 P.3d 579 (N.M. 2009) (observing traffic violations supports reasonable suspicion for a stop)
State v. Torres, 127 N.M. 20, 976 P.2d 20 (N.M. 1999) (discussion of HGN evidentiary/use considerations)