State v. Swain
2016 NMCA 024
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Lamont Swain was arrested at a sobriety checkpoint in De Baca County after refusing to show his driver’s license and was charged with concealing identity, DWI, and controlled-substance offenses.
- Sergeant Herbert Hinders planned and supervised the checkpoint and emailed a radio station a month earlier requesting publicity; he did not confirm receipt, check broadcasts, or seek newspaper notice.
- The district court found the checkpoint complied with seven Betancourt factors but ruled the State failed the advance-publicity factor because the radio never received the email and no other adequate steps were taken.
- The State appealed, arguing lack of advance publicity alone does not render an otherwise Betancourt-compliant checkpoint unconstitutional.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the legal question de novo and the district court’s factual findings for substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of advance publicity alone makes a Betancourt-compliant sobriety checkpoint unconstitutional | State: Lack of advance publicity does not, by itself, invalidate a checkpoint when other Betancourt factors are met | Swain: The checkpoint was unconstitutional because the State failed to provide advance publicity as required by Betancourt | The court held advance publicity is one of eight factors and is not dispositive; absence of publicity alone does not render the checkpoint unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt, 105 N.M. 655 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (articulates eight-factor framework for evaluating sobriety checkpoints and notes advance publicity enhances reasonableness)
- State v. Olaya, 105 N.M. 690 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (applied Betancourt factors and upheld a checkpoint despite lack of advance publicity)
- State v. Bates, 120 N.M. 457 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (held advance publicity is not dispositive where other Betancourt factors support reasonableness)
- State v. Madalena, 121 N.M. 63 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (affirmed that checkpoints substantially complying with Betancourt factors are constitutional under state constitution)