389 P.3d 1080
N.M. Ct. App.2016Background
- At ~1:00 a.m. during a sobriety checkpoint, Deputy Rael stopped Laressa Vargas after observing her vehicle and smelling alcohol; Vargas appeared nervous, confused, and had bloodshot, watery eyes.
- Vargas performed poorly on four field sobriety tests (could not complete any) and was arrested for DWI.
- She submitted to a breath test that registered .04/.05; Deputy Rael believed her impairment was greater than the breath result indicated and requested a blood test.
- Vargas initially agreed to a blood test but later refused. Prosecutors charged her with aggravated DWI based on her refusal to submit to the blood test under New Mexico’s Implied Consent Act.
- After bench trial and appeals, the district court affirmed; the Court of Appeals reviewed sufficiency of the evidence for DWI and the constitutionality of using a refusal to a warrantless blood draw to aggravate the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove DWI (impaired to slightest degree) | State: FST failures, alcohol odor, confused demeanor, bloodshot/watery eyes, admission of drinking, and breath result support conviction | Vargas: No direct evidence of impaired driving; breath BAC (.04/.05) inconsistent with impairment | Court: Evidence (FST performance, observations, admission) was substantial to sustain DWI conviction (impaired to slightest degree) |
| Constitutionality of warrantless blood test and use of refusal to aggravate DWI under implied consent | State: Implied Consent Act permits adverse consequences for refusal, and blood test request followed arrest and breath test | Vargas: Warrantless blood test request was an unreasonable search; her refusal should be excluded and cannot aggravate charge | Court: Under Birchfield, warrantless blood draws are significantly intrusive and cannot be criminalized via implied consent; refusal cannot be basis to aggravate DWI absent warrant or exigent/case-specific justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless breath tests incident to arrest are reasonable; warrantless blood tests are more intrusive and cannot be criminalized via implied consent)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (blood draws generally require a warrant unless exigent circumstances exist)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (Supreme Court recognized states’ ability to impose civil and evidentiary consequences for refusal to submit to testing)
- State v. Sparks, 102 N.M. 317 (1985) (substantial-evidence standard explained)
- State v. Neal, 143 N.M. 341 (2008) (unsatisfactory FST performance supports DWI conviction)
Conclusion: The Court affirmed Vargas’s DWI conviction (impaired to slightest degree) based on the officer’s observations and FST performance, but reversed the aggravated-DWI conviction and remanded for resentencing because Birchfield forbids criminal punishment for refusing a warrantless blood draw absent a warrant or exigent circumstances.