State v. Vargas
2017 NMSC 29
| N.M. | 2017Background
- At a DWI checkpoint, Deputy Rael arrested Laressa Vargas after observing alcohol odor, bloodshot/watery eyes, and poor performance on field sobriety tests.
- Vargas consented to two breath tests (results 0.04 and 0.05) but refused a requested blood draw after being warned refusal could aggravate punishment and revoke her license.
- Metropolitan Court convicted Vargas of aggravated DWI under NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(D)(3) (refusal to submit to chemical testing + evidence of intoxication) and sentenced her to 90 days (75 days credit).
- While Vargas’s appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota, holding warrantless breath tests may be permissible incident to arrest but warrantless blood tests require a warrant (or probable cause plus exigent circumstances).
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals applied Birchfield, reversed Vargas’s aggravated-DWI conviction, and remanded for resentencing on a basic DWI conviction (impaired to the slightest degree); the State sought certiorari.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: Vargas could not be criminally punished for refusing a warrantless blood draw because the arresting officer lacked statutory probable cause to obtain a warrant under NMSA 1978, § 66-8-111(A), and Birchfield applies retroactively to her pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Birchfield applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal | Birchfield announces a new rule and should not apply retroactively | Birchfield alters the class of conduct punishable (bars criminalization of refusal to warrantless blood draws) and thus applies under Teague’s exception | Birchfield applies retroactively to appeals pending when decided |
| Whether appellate court erred in addressing Vargas’s unpreserved Fourth Amendment claim sua sponte | Review was improper because State lacked opportunity for supplemental briefing and to develop record on probable cause/exigency | Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure rights are fundamental; appellate discretion permits addressing such issues in the public interest | Court of Appeals did not abuse discretion though supplemental briefing would have been preferable |
| Whether a warrantless blood draw was a reasonable search incident to arrest | State argued implied consent and statutory scheme could support blood testing and aggravated punishment for refusal | Vargas argued Birchfield bars criminal penalties for refusing warrantless blood draws absent a warrant or probable cause + exigency | Warrantless blood draw was unreasonable; refusal cannot be punished where no warrant/probable cause-for-felony or death/great-bodily-injury existed |
| Whether Deputy had statutory probable cause to obtain a warrant for blood testing under NMSA § 66-8-111(A) | State did not contend Vargas caused death/great bodily injury or committed a felony while impaired; argued general probable cause sufficed | Vargas argued statutory standard not met and warrantless blood draw therefore unlawful | Deputy lacked the specific statutory probable cause to obtain a warrant; therefore search unreasonable and refusal not criminally punishable |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless breath tests may be incident to arrest; warrantless blood tests require a warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances; refusal to submit to warrantless blood draw cannot be criminalized)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules; exceptions for substantive rules or watershed procedural rules)
- Kersey v. Hatch, 148 N.M. 381 (N.M. 2010) (New Mexico adopts Teague analysis for retroactivity of new rules)
- State v. Leyva, 149 N.M. 435 (N.M. 2011) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness balancing applied to searches and seizures)