State v. Mike, 34,113

Defendant Lester Mike was convicted of driving while under the influence after a traffic stop for an alleged failure to use a turn signal.
Officer testified he was following directly behind Defendant when he observed Defendant turn without signaling and then stopped him.
Defendant challenged the stop as lacking reasonable suspicion under NMSA 1978, § 66-7-325(A), arguing no evidence showed other traffic could be affected.
Defendant also challenged admission of the breath-alcohol test, arguing SLD regulation noncompliance and possible contamination from a portable mouthpiece during the deprivation period.
The district court rejected both challenges; the Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm and, after Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of stop for turn-signal violation	Officer following directly behind observed the un-signaled turn, supplying reasonable suspicion	No evidence that other traffic (including officer) could be affected by failure to signal	Stop was lawful; officer following directly behind is sufficient to show traffic could be affected
Admissibility of BAC test results under SLD regs	Officer checked Defendant’s mouth and observed no eating/drinking/smoking during 20-minute deprivation, satisfying 7.33.2.15(B)(2) NMAC	Portable mouthpiece could have introduced a foreign substance making results unreliable; State didn’t show no foreign matter was introduced	Admission proper; regulation requires observation about eating/drinking/smoking, not proof no foreign substances were introduced

State v. Hubble, 206 P.3d 579 (N.M. 2009) (officer’s presence and observation can show traffic that may be affected by un-signaled turn)
State v. Anaya, 176 P.3d 1163 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (officer’s vehicle was not traffic that could be affected when it was not in position to be impacted; lack of other traffic undermined reasonable suspicion)