State v. Scharff, 284 P.3d 447

Deputy observed Scharff exit a parking lot servicing several businesses, stop on a sidewalk area adjacent to Main Street, then enter roadway.
Deputy initiated a traffic stop after observing the vehicle stop on the sidewalk rather than before entering Main Street.
Defendant was driving, subjected to DUI investigation after odor of alcohol observed.
Defendant was charged with DUI, failure to stop before emerging from an alley or private driveway, and driving on a suspended license.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence claiming the stop was based on a mistaken reading of 66-7-346 and was pretextual; district court denied suppression.
Defendant appealed the suppression ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was justified at inception (application of 66-7-346).	State argues 66-7-346 applies to parking-lot driveways and stops on sidewalks; no mistake of law.	Scharff argues 66-7-346 excludes parking lots; stop was unlawful based on mistaken law.	No mistake of law; stop justified at inception.
Whether the stop was pretextual.	State contends defendant failed to prove pretext; burden on defendant; totality of circumstances show valid stop.	Scharff asserts stop was pretextual to conduct DUI investigation.	Not pretextual; burden not met; suppression affirmed non-pretextually.

State v. Davis, 2003-NMSC-022 (2003-NMSC-022) (analyze statutory language for legislative intent; plain meaning if unambiguous)
State v. Gutierrez, 2007-NMSC-033 (2007-NMSC-033) (plain meaning rule; may depart if ambiguity or injustice)
State v. Hubble, 2009-NMSC-014 (2009-NMSC-014) (plain meaning and interpretive approach to statutes)
State v. Neal, 2007-NMSC-043 (2007-NMSC-043) (mixed law-and-fact review for suppression rulings)
State v. Ochoa, 2009-NMCA-002 (2009-NMCA-002) (definition of pretextual stop; burden on defendant to show pretext)