City of Santa Fe v. Marquez

• Decision Date: 20 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. 32,885.,32,885.
• Citation: City of Santa Fe v. Marquez, 285 P.3d 637, 2012 -NMSC- 31 (N.M. 2012)
• Parties: CITY OF SANTA FE, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Julio J. MARQUEZ, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

285 P.3d 637

2012 -NMSC- 031

CITY OF SANTA FE, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Julio J. MARQUEZ, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 32,885.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Aug. 20, 2012.

Eugene I. Zamora, R. Alfred Walker, Marcos D. Martinez, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

Trace L. Rabern, Attorney and Counselor at Law, L.L.C., Trace L. Rabern, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

SERNA, Justice.

{1} The City of Santa Fe(City) charged Julio Marquez with two violations of the Santa Fe City Code (SFCC), including Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Drugs (DWI).After the City rested its case at trial, the district court sua sponte ruled that the arresting officer's DWI investigation was unlawful and on that basis entered an order suppressing all evidence from the investigation and therefore dismissing the DWI charge against Marquez.The City now brings this direct appeal pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 35–15–11(1959)(providing municipalities with “the right to appeal ... to the supreme court from any decision of the district court in every case brought for the violation of an ordinance of said municipality”), invalidated on other grounds by City of Las Cruces v. Sanchez,2007–NMSC–042, ¶¶ 20–21, 142 N.M. 243, 164 P.3d 942(holding that Section 35–15–11 confers upon municipalities the right to appeal a final judgment to the district court unless barred by double jeopardy protections and that the statute's language limiting appeals to only two circumstances was unconstitutional).

{2} Under our statutes, constitutional double jeopardy principles bar the City from retrying Marquez and therefore this appeal must be dismissed.We nonetheless write to cast light on the unintended consequences that can follow (and, in this case, did follow) from waiting until trial to consider suppression issues; to clarify that our Rules of Criminal Procedure require a motion to suppress evidence to be made within twenty days of entry of a defendant's plea, absent good cause shown; and to expand the applicable rule to require district courts to adjudicate the suppression of possibly illegally obtained evidence prior to trial, unless good cause exists for delaying such rulings until trial.

I.BACKGROUND

{3}Julio Marquez was arrested on October 22, 2009 shortly after he made a wide right turn at a street intersection in Santa Fe without slowing down or stopping at the stop sign.A Santa Fe Police Department officer, Michael Rute, witnessed the infraction and stopped Marquez to cite him.After observing indicia of intoxication, Officer Rute administered field sobriety tests and ultimately arrested Marquez for DWI.Marquez was later found to have a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.09 percent.

{4} The City charged Marquez with Careless Driving, a violation of SFCC Uniform Traffic Code 2004 Section 12–6–12.4(2009), and with simple (non-aggravated) DWI, a violation of SFCC Uniform Traffic Code 2004 Section 12–6–12.1(2009), available at http:// www. santafenm. gov/ Document View. aspx?DID= 4191.The City's case against Marquez went to trial in municipal court, and Marquez was found guilty of both offenses.Marquez timely appealed to the district court for a de novo trial.

{5} A bench trial before the district court commenced in October 2010.Officer Rute testified that he was driving southbound on Camino Alire just after midnight on October 22, 2009 when he saw a Pontiac Aztek traveling westbound on Alto Street.The Pontiac, according to Officer Rute, failed to make a proper stop before turning right from Alto Street onto Camino Alire.Officer Rute testified that he had to swerve to avoid a crash with the Pontiac as it made a wide turn, that the Pontiac then pulled immediately in front of another vehicle, and that as a result he stopped the driver of the Pontiac because he“felt that the vehicle was driving in a careless manner.”

{6} Officer Rute further testified that after he made contact with the driver, soon identified by his driver's license as Marquez, Marquez “started to fumble” for his registration and insurance papers.After engaging Marquez in conversation, Officer Rute observed “that he had slurry speech, he had [an] odor of intoxicating liquor emanating from his breath when he spoke, and his eyes appeared to be red and bloodshot.”Officer Rute asked Marquez if he had consumed any alcohol, and after initially denying that he had done so Marquez responded that he had drunk one glass of wine.Next Officer Rute directed Marquez out of his vehicle in order to administer field sobriety tests.As Officer Rute testified, in conducting the tests he observed a sufficient number of the clues prescribed as indicators of impairment to conclude that Marquez was impaired.

{7} After Marquez completed the field sobriety tests and Officer Rute determined Marquez to be impaired, Officer Rute arrested Marquez for DWI.Because Marquez was unable to provide a breath sample due to asthma, a blood draw was administered.Marquez's blood sample was analyzed and indicated a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.09 percent, just above the 0.08 percent concentration treated as per se proof of impairment.SeeSFCC 2004 § 12–6–12.1(B)(1).

{8}The parties agreed to a two-month continuance of the trial following interruption of Officer Rute's testimony to accommodate an out-of-town witness (the blood-test technician), after which Officer Rute became unavailable due to his treatment for a serious illness.When Marquez's trial resumed in January 2011, Marquez's attorney began a cross-examination of Officer Rute but stopped his questioning after Officer Rute said that he was not feeling well and could not remember his prior direct testimony.The City did not redirect or call any other witnesses and rested its case.

{9} Officer Rute's patrol car was equipped with a video camera which had recorded the entire stop and arrest, and this video recording was previously admitted into evidence, with no objection from Marquez.The district court also admitted the results of Marquez's blood-alcohol test.Although Marquez objected to admission of the test results, he did so only on the grounds that the test kit might have expired and that the toxicologist who had testified about the test process and interpreted its results had not performed the test and was not properly qualified.Marquez did not assert at any point prior to the close of the City's case that Officer Rute lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the DWI investigation, nor did Marquez move to suppress evidence flowing from that investigation.At the close of the City's case, Marquez asked the district court to review the video recording of the traffic stop.After the court did so, Marquez moved for a directed verdict on the DWI charge, on the grounds that he was unable to cross-examine Officer Rute and that the video contradicted Officer Rute's portrayal of Marquez's driving, speech, and behavior.

{10}The district court concluded that the video did not show Marquez's car almost hitting Officer Rute's patrol car or any other vehicle, contrary to the officer's testimony; that far from slurring his words, Marquez spoke with “perfect enunciation,” again contradicting the officer's testimony; that Officer Rute was belligerent while Marquez was cooperative; that in the court's assessment Officer Rute simply took offense to Marquez having rolled through the intersection without stopping and had a “preconceived notion” about Marquez thereafter; that Marquez did not fumble for his papers; that when Marquez exited his car, he was not swaying; and that Marquez's admission to consuming a single glass of wine did not provide Officer Rute with reasonable suspicion necessary to expand the traffic stop into a DWI investigation.Accordingly, the court determined it would suppress all evidence from the DWI investigation and would enter an order dismissing the DWI charge, as well as upholding Marquez's conviction on the Careless Driving charge.

{11}The district court thereafter entered a written order, styled as a “Judgment, Sentence and Order of Remand,” which adjudged Marquez guilty of Careless Driving and imposed a suspended jail sentence and court costs.The order also provided that after “having heard testimony, taken evidence, [and] considered the arguments of counsel,”the court determined that Officer Rute “did not have reasonable suspicion, based on the odor of alcohol and admission to drinking, to expand the scope of the traffic stop to an investigation of [DWI].”On that basis, the court ordered that “all evidence of [DWI] developed as a result of the investigation following the traffic stop for Careless Driving is hereby suppressed, and the charge of [DWI] is hereby dismissed with prejudice.”The district court's order did not explicitly rule on, or otherwise make any reference to, Marquez's motion for a directed verdict.The City timely filed this direct appeal of the district court's order.

II.DISCUSSION

{12} Double jeopardy bars the City from retrying Marquez on the DWI charge, and therefore we must dismiss the City's appeal.Here, jeopardy had attached because the City presented evidence against Marquez to the district court.SeeState v. Nunez,2000–NMSC–013, ¶ 28, 129 N.M. 63, 2 P.3d 264(“in a nonjury trial, ... jeopardy attaches when the court begins to hear at least some evidence on behalf of the state.”).

{13} This result follows directly from our holding in State v. Lizzol,2007–NMSC–024, 141 N.M. 705, 160 P.3d 886.In Lizzol, a police officer pulled over the defendant motorist for driving without taillights in the early morning hours.Id.¶ 2.The officer “[o]bserv[ed] signs of intoxication,” administered field sobriety tests, and arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.Id.At trial in metropolitan court, the state attempted to lay the foundation for admission of the card containing the breath alcohol test (BAT) results through the...