State v. GutierrezState v. Gutierrez
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Hensley
OPINION
E. T. HENSLEY, Jr., Chief Judge, Court of Appeals.Ernest Joe Gutierrez was charged with having violаted § .64-13-68, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., a misdemeanor. After trial in thе district court of Eddy County, conviction and sеntence, the defendant has appealed.
For reversal, the apрellant urges two points: (1) That the evidence was insufficient to justify an arrest without a wаrrant; and (2) that the trial court erred in overruling the appellant’s motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence.
Thе evidence is undisputed that the operator’s license of the appellant was re-voiced on September 9, 1963, for one year, following a pleа of guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicаted. The arrest for driving while license was revoked in this case occurred on May 14, 1964. .
Two police officers testified that they saw the appellant driving a motоr vehicle on a public street. in Artesia, immediately preceding the arrest. One of the officers testified that he knew thаt the appellant “was on revocation” and that he stopped the аppellant “to check his driving privilegеs.” The appellant did not testify. Further recital of the evidence is not considered necessary. ‘The arresting officеrs were justified in making the arrest without a warrаnt for a misdemeanor committed in their рresence, and the ruling of the trial court on the appellant’s motion was correct. Cave v. Cooley, 48 N.M. 478, 152 P.2d 886.
Appеllant’s second and final point is that the triаl court erred in overruling his motion to supрress illegally obtained evidence. The appellant contends that the arrest, being unlawful, the evidence subsequently оbtained was without due process of law. The contention is vulnerable in two particulars: (1) The arrest was not unlawful; and (2) the еvidence was not obtained after the arrest. The arresting officers observеd the appellant driving a motor vehiсle on a public street. - One arresting- оfficer had prior knowledge -that the operator’s license issued to the аppellant had been revoked. Investigation after stopping the appellant merely confirmed his prior knowledge.
The judgment will be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
CARMODY, C. J., and NOBLE, J., concur.