Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

New Mexico DWI/DUI Blood Draw Reports Subject to 6th Amendment Right to Confrontation of Witnesses

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:37:25 -0700

Two recent cases from New Mexico's Supreme Court apply the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts to DWI/DUI blood draws, and chemical testing in controlled substance cases.

The first case of State v. Bullcoming involved a felony aggravated DWI/DUI conviction. The State introduced a blood alcohol test (blood draw) that was taken from the defendant under a search warrant issued following his refusal of the breath alcohol test. The court made some interesting and somewhat contradictory findings regarding the admissibility of the report and the defendant's 6th Amendment right of confrontation of witnesses.

First, in light of the Melendez-Diaz decision, the Court reversed its prior position in State v. Dedman that had ruled that forensic tests were public records and therefore not subject to 6th Amendment confrontation protections set forth in the United States Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington. Dedman found that these reports were non-testimonial in nature since they were public records. Under Crawford, only testimonial evidence prepared in anticipation of trial is subject to 6th Amendment protection.

Melendez-Diaz ruled that these reports are "quite plainly affidavits" and that "there [was] little doubt that [they] fall within the 'core class of testimonial statements,'" governed by the Confrontation Clause and Crawford. To bring New Mexico law in line with the United States Supreme Court, the Court in Bullcoming ruled that these reports are testimonial, they do not fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and therefore they are subject to cross examination.

Then remarkably, the Court found that the analyst preparing the report was a "mere scrivener" simply transcribing the results from the gas chromatograph. As such, the analyst/scrivener was unnecessary in court to meet the demands of Melendez-Diaz, Crawford and the 6th Amendment right to confrontation of witnesses. Instead, the Court allowed for the presence in court of any other qualified analyst to testify to the results of the testing analyst/scrivener.

It is unclear where this case will go from here. However, it seems that the second part of the ruling renders the first part impotent. The second part of the holding ignores much of the analysis in Melendez-Diaz which makes clear that these types of reports are prepared in anticipation of trial. The court in Melendez-Diaz addressed the pressures on analysts to provide results helpful to the prosecution. The court in Bullcoming ignores this possibility leaving the analyst/scrivener free of cross examination on possible errors in the testing instrument or processes, or even the outright fabrication of the results contemplated in Melendez-Diaz.

Bullcoming takes a step in the right direction. At least, blood draw results will no longer simply be admitted as gospel with no testimony from a representative from the state lab. However, the right to confrontation and cross examination has taken a blow when the testing analyst can escape cross examination on his or her experience, expertise, testing procedures, background, history, biases, and prior work product to name only a few possible sources impacting credibility.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Criminal v. Civil Domestic Violence Charges in New Mexico

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:38:01 -0700

Many times clients are confused on the difference between a criminal domestic violence action and a civil domestic violence action. There are many distinctions between the two, too many to enumerate them all here. In short, however, each is extremely serious and should be treated as such.

A criminal domestic violence action usually begins with a criminal complaint alleging battery on a household member or assault on a household member. In Albuquerque, these are filed in Metropolitan Court. In other areas, including Rio Rancho and Sandoval County, they are filed in magistrate court. In cases involving serious injury or deadly weapons, the cases will be filed as felony domestic violence and the case will eventually be transferred to District Court.

A civil domestic violence action begins with a Petition for Order of Protection Against Domestic Abuse. In most areas of New Mexico including Albuquerque, Rio Rancho and Santa Fe, these cases are heard by a domestic violence hearing officer. These are not criminal in nature. As such, the standard of proof is not as rigorous as in a criminal proceeding and sometimes it seems that the hearing officers are predisposed to make a finding of domestic violence despite the evidence. On the other hand, a finding of domestic violence in a civil hearing will not result in criminal penalties such as probation or jail time.

In both the criminal and civil domestic violence actions, the alleged perpetrator of domestic violence will be ordered to have no contact with the alleged victim. In a criminal case, the "no contact" provision will be in the Order Setting Conditions of Release. In the civil action, a Temporary Order of Protection is issued upon filing the Petition for Order of Protection from Domestic Abuse. This Temporary Order will remain in effect until the hearing which usually is set within 10 days of service of the Order on the Respondent (alleged perpetrator). If there is a finding of domestic violence at the hearing on the Petition for Order of Protection, the Order of Protection will be extended for 6 months. It may be extended an additional 6 months for good cause on a Motion to Extend Order of Protection.

In both the civil and criminal cases, a violation of the "no-contact" provisions have very serious consequences. Violations of these Orders is a crime. In fact, violation can be charged as a felony in the criminal case with very serious penal consequences. In the criminal case, the defendant will be arrested and the judge may order the defendant held in custody until the trial date. In addition, the defendant will likely face new charges including possible felony domestic violence. In the civil case, a violation of the no-contact order can and typically does result in a finding of contempt for which the Respondent can be taken into custody often times for 10 days, though the judge can order a longer time period.

In addition to the distinctions above, the jurisdiction of the court over matters related to the parties is very different. The family court domestic violence officer can address who stays in the home, generally the alleged victim. The domestic violence hearing officer can also address temporary child custody and time-sharing , and child support. The criminal court cannot address these issues as its jurisdiction is limited to criminal prosecution. However, the no-contact order in the Order Setting Conditions of Release often has the effect of awarding the home to the alleged victim.

It is important that you understand the difference in these two proceeding if you have been accused of domestic violence. Though the criminal case may appear much more serious, the reality is that the civil case has much broader consequences addressing property rights, child custody and child support. And of course, a finding of domestic violence in the family court has most of the same negative consequences of a criminal conviction such as immigration consequences, employment consequences and gun ownership to name a few.

In short, in either case, you should contact an attorney immediately upon learning of allegations of domestic violence. The possible consequences are too severe to take these matters lightly.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Collateral Employment Consequences of Criminal Convictions

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:17:14 -0700

The collateral consequences of a criminal conviction can often outweigh the criminal penalties. The employment consequences can be particularly problematic. The impact of a criminal conviction on employment can be difficult to determine because the laws and regulations are often industry specific and are therefore found in the industry codes and regulations.

However, it is clear that many convictions will impact future employment. Most employers (80% of large corporations and 69% of small businesses) conduct background checks on all employees. It is estimated that two-thirds of employers will not hire a former offender. Due to the widespread practice of background checks along with the reluctance to hire those convicted of crimes, chances are a conviction will have serious consequences for your future employment.

In fact, there are many occupations where employment is barred completely by a variety of offenses, not all of which are felonies. Most professions and occupations will bar licensure in cases of felony convictions. In addition, many also bar licensure in cases of dishonesty or fraud. These categories cover a lot of ground, not unlike the crimes of moral turpitude classification critical to immigration cases. Those professions involving fiduciary responsibilities such as banking and financial services also carry bans for convictions involving breach of trust and money laundering.

Even where a conviction does not create an absolute bar, licensing agencies often may refuse licensing on the grounds of moral character. Those offenses reflecting on moral character can be quite broad ranging from failure to pay child support, domestic violence/battery on a household member, crimes of dishonesty, fraud and certainly any felony conviction.

There a number of professions that bar employment for controlled substance offenses including the medical profession, law enforcement, and private security. And of course, convictions for controlled substance offenses can be used in judging moral character. The problem with the controlled substance conviction is that by statute in New Mexico, marijuana remains classified as a controlled substance. As such, a marijuana conviction can potentially harm potential employment opportunities in the future.

Finally, many occupations and professions will have occupation specific bars. The most obvious case is daycare and teaching for those convicted of sex crimes. Again, charges for sex crimes can sometimes involve what would appear to rational people to be relatively innocent behavior. The most egregious abuse of sex crime statutes involves prosecution of young men and women, and even children, for sexual exploitation for carrying or transmitting explicit pictures of friends/classmates on their mobile phones. A conviction for even this can carry lifetime registration as a sex offender with all the employment consequences of said registration.

It is important to know the employment consequences of a conviction as you move forward in your case. Unfortunately, some charges are so severe that there is little room to maneuver or avoid the possible employment consequences without taking even greater risks of criminal consequences. However, it is important that you understand all of the collateral consequences of a conviction which often go well beyond punishment by the courts.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Independent Blood Alcohol Testing Now Available 24/7 in Albuquerque Area

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:19:38 -0700

You have a right to an independent blood alcohol test when you have been arrested for DWI/DUI in New Mexico. In the past, this was more theoretical than real due to the lack of availability of on the spot independent testing. This has now changed in Albuquerque with a new independent blood testing service, BATDRAW.

BATDRAW will show up 24/7 anywhere within Bernalillo County, and in many of the outlying areas. The organization will send out a certified phlebotomist to conduct the test. The test results are fully admissible in a DWI/DUI defense. The results are also admissible for the MVD license revocation hearing. The BATDRAW blood test is far more reliable than the breath alcohol test utilized by law enforcement which has a acceptable 10% error rate.

The test is free so long as you submit to the State's breath alcohol test If you refuse the State's breath alcohol test, you will be charged for the test. In addition, you will be responsible for all costs associated with getting the testing technician to court at trial.

Take the State's test, then take the BATDRAW test to get accurate results. Insist on the BATDRAW independent blood alcohol test. Be vocal and leave no doubt that you made the request. As seen in State v. Duarte, any doubt in your request for an independent blood alcohol test will likely be construed against you.

You have the right to an independent blood test. You should exercise it if there are any doubts in your mind regarding the results of the law enforcement result. You should most definitely use the service if your results are close to .08 or .16 due to the recognized 10% error rate in the breath test. Clearly, you do not want the test if you are under the limit as the rate of error in the breath alcohol tests swings both ways.

The exercise could prove purely academic anyway due to New Mexico law that allows drivers to be convicted at levels below the legal .08 level, under the "impaired to the slightest degree" standard. However, it is far better to be fighting the "impaired to the slightest degree" than the statutory presumptive impairment above .08. And, anything over .16 puts you at a severe disadvantage due to aggravated DWI/DUI charges for levels over .16. In addition, .08 or higher virtually guarantees a revocation of your license by MVD.

Put this number in your phone., 505.712.7180. Give to your friends and family. Hopefully, you will not need it, but if you do, you do!

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

10th Circuit Places Burden on State to Justify Trial Delays

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:31:40 -0700

The 10th Circuit Court Appeals addressed the 6th Amendment Right to a speedy trial in U.S. v. Seltzer. Though the constitutional protections under New Mexico law are typically more expansive than federal law, the 10th Circuit in the Seltzer case appears more respectful of the 6th Amendment than the recent New Mexico Supreme Court decision of State v. Garza.

In State v. Garza, the court set forth a sliding scale related to a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial in New Mexico. The court suggested speedy trial parameters as follows: 1) 12 months for simple cases, 2) 15 months for cases with intermediate complexity, and 2) 18 months for complex cases. The New Mexico Supreme Court even allowed for some leeway in the these standards by stating that these time limits were mere thresholds for further inquiry.

The 10th Circuit in U.S. v. Seltzer set forth a number of considerations in the determination of whether or not a defendant's right to a speedy trial have been violated. The Court stated that a delay of more than one year from the date of arrest or indictment, whichever is earlier, was "presumptively prejudicial" to the defense. The court noted that in particularly complex cases, longer delays, even a two year delay might not be unreasonable. The court noted further that in straightforward cases, even a minor delay might be considered prejudicial and unreasonable.

The Court found that the charges against the defendant Seltzer related to counterfeiting, drug possession, and firearm possession by a felon were not complex and a delay of more than one year was presumptively unreasonable. The Court stated that even lesser delays might prove prejudicial in cases involving eyewitness testimony.

Once the presumption of prejudice has been found, it is up to the State to "provide an inculpable explanation for delays in speedy trial claims." The Court cited the 1972 United States Supreme Court case of Barker v. Wingo as follows: "A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay." Thus the burden quickly shifts to the State to show a legitimate reason for any delay impacting the defendant's speedy trial rights. This burden becomes harder to meet in cases involving simple charges.

Unlike the New Mexico Court in State v. Garza, there is a heavy burden on the State to justify any delay impacting the defendant's 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial. New Mexico typically zealously protects the constitutional rights of its citizens. The protections under New Mexico's Constitution are generally much broader than under federal law. In State v. Garza, the burden appears to be on the defendant to prove prejudice, rather than on the State where the burden belongs. Hopefully, the New Mexico Supreme Court will take the lead of the 10th and revisit the 6th Amendment rights that are so important to due process and a fair trial.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Right to Independent DWI/DUI Chemical Testing, Really?

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:27:16 -0700

New Mexico law allows a DWI/DUI suspect to request independent chemical testing. In fact, NMSA 66-8-109(B) requires that the officer inform the suspect of this right. The question arises what happens if the officer fails to offer the independent chemical test?

The law dictates that the breath alcohol score must be suppressed for failure to inform the DWI/DUI suspect of the right to independent chemical testing. The problem is in proving the failure of the officer to comply with the law.

As is often the case in DWI/DUI cases in New Mexico, the issue boils down to issues of credibility. Who is the court or jury to believe, the cop or the suspect? It is often a coin toss with the jury. As for the Court, it is clear that the presumptions are with the cop. This is so in the impaired to slightest degree, under the .08 limits DWI/DUI cases, where you are impaired if the cop says you are impaired. It is equally so in the advice of rights for independent chemical testing.

This presumption was made clear in the 2007 case of State v. Duarte. In that case, the officer videotaped the field sobriety tests. Presumably this same video would have carried evidence of the reading of the implied consent and the advice of rights for independent chemical testing. The cop lost the video. The Court made some interesting rulings allowing in testimony regarding the field sobriety tests despite the loss of the only real evidence of the suspect's performance.

Further, the suspect said that he was not informed of that right. The cop did not say he did inform him of that right. Instead, he said it was his general practice to read the advice of rights. Despite the loss of the video, again the only true evidence of the reading of those rights, and the officer's lack of recollection of the reading other than his general practice, the Court ruled in favor of the State and refused to exclude the breath alcohol results.

This case, like the under the limits DWI/DUI arrests on the impaired to the slightest degree standard, points to the real presumptions in DWI/DUI cases in New Mexico. Is there really a presumption of innocence when an officer need only opine that the suspect was impaired for a DWI/DUI conviction? Is there really any due process protection at all when as in this case the only tangible evidence of the officer's compliance with the law has been lost, and yet the officer is allowed to testify to what would have been on the video based general procedure?

The great majority of law enforcement officers are honest, competent and professional. Due process protects society against those that are not. New Mexico's DWI/DUI laws present a sliding scale of justice which is dependent upon the luck of the draw on the cop, the prosecutor and the judge. Fairness, justice and due process are situational. Is DWI/DUI such a threat to our society that it justifies the rebalancing of our system of justice?

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

More on New Mexico Senate Bill 151: Impaired to the Slightest Degree

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:50:36 -0700

In the last post, I looked at how New Mexico Senator Michael Sanchez' Senate Bill 151 (SB 151) would eliminate the practice of arresting drivers found sleeping in their vehicles while intoxicated. Fortunately, Senator Sanchez went further to address the routine practice of arresting drivers who are below the legal limit of .08 on what is often referred to as the impaired to the slightest degree standard.

The impaired to the slightest degree standard creates many issues regarding discretionary enforcement of the laws. The standard basically creates absolute discretion on the part of a DWI/DUI officer. The history of civil rights alone should be enough of an argument to prevent this kind of latitude in law enforcement. Even assuming that there are no possible racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, or other possible prejudices in law enforcement, there are other equally pernicious pressures on law enforcement for DWI/DUI convictions.

Most recently, it is has been suggested that the Albuquerque DWI/DUI Unit has quotas that must be met. There are also overtime incentives for these arrests since going to court entails overtime pay. There are broader funding pressures of offices of prosecutors across New Mexico, since funding for DWI/DUI enforcement, which make no mistake is big business, is often tied to prosecution statistics. This pressure is likely to grow in the current budget environment. Finally, the press must always weigh in with an attack every time an officer, prosecutor or judge exercises some rational discretion on DWI/DUI enforcement. The pressures for arrest and conviction are simply too great to have any latitude at all in the enforcement of New Mexico's DWI/DUI laws.

In fact, I can think of no other law that has such a vague standard. "Impaired to the slightest degree?" Really? What does this mean? It has no meaning other than that given to it by the officer at any particular time. So what if the cop needs to meet a quota, just doesn't like the driver, is trying to impress the boss, or is just having a bad day (I assume cops probably have more than their share of stressful days)? Perhaps it is more insidious. Perhaps the cop is looking to book more overtime for a new fishing boat? And most frightening of all for all of us, maybe the cop is prejudice against the driver for race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, age, sex or some other grounds that taints his judgment even slightly.

The fact is the law should be precisely written. Citizens should know what to expect. There should be a standard that they can meet. They must be able to avoid violation of the law through thoughtful and responsible conduct. There is no such standard currently in New Mexico's DWI/DUI law enforcement. In fact, most people still believe the standard is .08 blood alcohol level. Many plan their evenings around this belief. Some even buy portable blood alcohol test devices to insure they comply with the law. There are even bars and restaurants that have these devices for their patrons. And the fact is, it simply does not matter. It is left to the cop.

The law should not be drafted for the 99% of law enforcement officers that conscientiously perform their duties. It should be drafted to protect against that very small percentage of those that don't. There should be a standard, any standard will do, .08, .04, .01 or even any alcohol at all. The public has a right to know the law and in its current state, the law is unknowable. There is simply no possible way for citizen to know whether or not they will be arrested for DWI/DUI if they are below .08. Due to the severe consequences of a DWI/DUI conviction, this is unacceptable and more than a little frightening.

To show your support for the bill, contact Senator Sanchez or your own representative at http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/legislatorsearch.aspx.

New Mexico Senate Bill 151 to Introduce Reason Into DWI/DUI Enforcement

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:00:49 -0700

The Albuquerque Journal reports that New Mexico Senator Michael Sanchez has introduced Senate Bill 151 (SB 151) which will address two serious problems in New Mexico DWI/DUI enforcement: 1) under the limits DWI/DUI arrests on the impaired to the slightest degree standard, and 2) the arrest of drivers found sleeping in their vehicles while intoxicated. The latter will be addressed here with a follow up on "impaired to the slightest degree."

Senator Sanchez 's SB 151 would address the practice of arresting drivers who are asleep in their car by inserting language defining driving to mean only those situations where the "person is behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and causing the motor vehicle to move or exercising control over the movement of the vehicle. Exercising control over a motor vehicle alone, without any movement of the vehicle and with no immediate intent to move the vehicle, does not constitute driving." The current DWI/DUI enforcement practices and the law allow drivers to be arrested for sleeping while intoxicated under the theory that they are in control of the vehicle.

Those in opposition to the change in the law argue that a person sleeping his or her car could wake up and decide to drive. Sure, they could. Someone drunk and sleeping in bed could wake up and decide to drive. In fact, that person is probably just or more likely to decide to drive drunk. After all, the person that had the good sense to avoid driving by sleeping in their vehicle at least possesses the conscience or fear of arrest necessary to cause them to avoid driving. Why should it be presumed that they would exercise the good judgment to avoid driving while intoxicated when severely intoxicated then exercise less restraint as the effects of the alcohol begin to wear off?

The fact is that the policy of arresting drivers who are sleeping in their cars to avoid driving under the influence actively encourages them to engage in the very behavior New Mexico's DWI/DUI laws are meant to deter. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's law enforcement DWI Training materials, for every driver that is arrested for DWI, there are 500 to 2000 drunken drivers that go undetected. If this is so, and one must weigh the risks of getting arrested for sleeping in a vehicle in a public parking lot which are probably pretty high versus getting arrested for DWI which according to NHTSA are extremely low. Due to the severe consequences of a DWI/DUI conviction, an odds oriented driver would drive rather than sleep since driving carries at best according to NHTSA a 1/500 chance of detection. I for one would rather the person sleep off their intoxication before getting behind the wheel drunk and possibley endangering me, my family or other innocent drivers.

The policy of arresting people for trying to do the right thing is wrong on purely a gut level. It makes no sense to punish someone for making a responsible decision. More than that, it endangers the public by more or less forcing people to drive home rather than sleep off their intoxication. New Mexico's DWI/DUI law and policy is irresponsible and dangerous. I am happy to hear that Senator Sanchez is pushing this bill.

To show your support for the bill, contact Senator Sanchez or your own representative at http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/legislatorsearch.aspx.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Tougher DWI/DUI Bill Stalls in New Mexico Senate

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:08:54 -0700

The Albuquerque Journal reported today that a bill toughening DWI/DUI penalties for first offenders died in the New Mexico Senate yesterday. The bill was considered a top priority for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

The bill would have established mandatory jail time or community custody for first time DWI/DUI offenders. The bill would have required a minimum 3 day jail sentence or 30 day community custody for first time offenders. Community custody requires electronic monitoring (ankle bracelet) 24 hours a day for those in the program. Both jail time and community custody are very costly. These costs apparently derailed the bill.

Those in opposition to the bill pointed to the unfunded costs in the program. They also pointed to the strain the program would place on already overcrowded jails throughout New Mexico. Finally, at least one senator, Bernadette Sanchez of Albuquerque, addressed the problem of overreliance on penalties and too little emphasis on treatment.

There were 150 DWI/DUI fatalities in New Mexico in 2009. 70 percent of those were caused by first time offenders. Governor Richardson and others have argued that tougher penalties will act as a deterrent. Richardson first proposed the bill when a drunk driver crashed into a carload full of teens in the summer of 2009 killing 4 of the teenagers.

DWI/DUI is a very serious problem in New Mexico. 150 deaths is unacceptable. The real challenge is to address the problem in a manner that effectively reduces drinking and driving. The reality is that every DWI/DUI carries mandatory jail time. The DWI/DUI offender is arrested and jailed pending a first appearance. Often, the timing of the arrest over the weekend will carry 2 or more days in jail before the first hearing is set for release.

Mandatory jail time will likely have no greater deterrent value than the deterrents currently in place which include arrest, jail, courts costs, fines, counseling, probation, community service, loss of driving privileges and vehicle seizure among others. If this is not enough, the attorney fees can be financially crippling for some.

The penalties and costs of DWI/DUI are pretty staggering as the law currently stands. A new approach is needed beyond the customary call for stiffer jail time. What that approach would be remains to be seen.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Out of State DWI/DUI Convictions Count as Priors Under New Mexico Law

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:36:51 -0700

Often times when drivers are charged with DWI/DUI in New Mexico, they have prior DWI/DUI convictions from other states. Many times, the charge in New Mexico will be to a DWI/DUI First Offense despite the prior conviction.

Those charged often believe that they were not charged with a subsequent DWI/DUI because the out of state conviction does not count against them. In reality, what typically has happened is that there has been no search of interstate criminal records at the time of the original filing of the complaint.

This does not mean that the complaint cannot be amended once the out of state DWI/DUI conviction(s) are discovered by the District Attorney. Therefore, if there is an out of state conviction for DWI/DUI, it will likely be discovered well before the trial date. If not, it will be discovered at sentencing and factored into the DWI/DUI sentencing where there is a significant amount of latitude allowed the judge.

The use of out of state DWI/DUI is allowed both by statute, NMSA 66-8-102(Q) and by case law, State v. Lewis. NMSA 66-8-102(Q) clearly allows for the use of out of state convictions for consideration of a charge as first or subsequent DWI/DUI. In addition, the New Mexico Court of Appeals determined in State v. Lewis that the use of out of state convictions for enhancement purposes is allowed under New Mexico law. The court ins State v. Lewis ruled that so long as the out of state DWI/DUI statute is substantially equivalent to NMSA 66-8-102, then the conviction can be used as a prior.

It is very important that you discuss your DWI/DUI history honestly with your attorney from the very first meeting. Prior convictions will almost always show at some point during the process. Hiding them from your attorney could severely impact the legal representation as the approaches for dealing with first time DWI/DUI and subsequent DWI/DUI can be very different particularly when it comes to consideration of plea offers. Surprises at trial are never good for you or your attorney. Surprises at sentencing can be extremely detrimental to your freedom.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The Problem With Under the Limits DWI Arrests in New Mexico

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:36:25 -0700

A recent article on KOB.com of Albuquerque addresses an important question, why would Albuquerque police officers arrest drivers for DWI/DUI at a breath alcohol level (BAC) of .04 when the legal limit is .08.

The answer that the writer provides is that "It's all about your performance, and it's up to the cops." You would hope as a citizen that the first part of the explanation is correct, that it is about your performance on the field sobriety tests. The problem is that the second part of the explanation is exactly right, it is entirely up to the cop.

The article also rightly points out that the law states that you may be arrested for DWI/DUI when your ability to drive is impaired to the slightest degree by alcohol. It is yet to be determined what precisely this means, "impaired to the slightest degree." The reality is that it is as the writer suggests up to the cop.

This is the problem and it is very serious problem. It is left to the police officer to determine or opine whether a driver's ability to drive is impaired to the slightest degree. The fact is that the field sobriety tests are susceptible to interpretation at best and outright falsification at worst. The turn on the walk and turn test is not performed just right. The heel and toe did not meet on the 5th, 7th and 9th step of the walk and turn. The driver could not keep his hands at his side during the one leg stand. The driver did not appear to understand or follow one of the many directions given during the fields sobriety tests. And the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test has potential for abuse at every single step of the process. There simply is no way to prove that the cop misconstrued or falsified the test results.

So what's the problem? Perhaps, the officer is under stress to meet DWI/DUI quotas. This is the most innocent offense. Worst case is that the level of subjectivity in these tests allows the officer to target particular kinds or races of people. There is no check on the officer's discretion. It is entirely up to the officer. And judges are under too much pressure to question the credibility of an officer. The prosecutor cannot dismiss a case that lacks merit. The same news outlet, and probably several others, that printed the article on why under the limits DWI/DUI might occur will print an article the morning following a dismissal of a DWI/DUI that attacks the judge, the prosecutor, and even the cop for not being tough enough on DWI/DUI offenders.

Impaired to the slightest degree has too much potential for abuse. There are far too many pressures on judges, prosecutors and police to get these convictions. Impaired to the slightest degree is not standard. What does it mean? It means whatever the cop says it means and that is it. The fact is that most are very surprised to hear that .08 is not the true standard. Citizens have a right to expect laws that are precisely drafted so that they can stay within the bounds of the law. The law should set forth a precise standard for DWI. It should not be left to the cop on the street. It is not fair to the cop and it is not fair to the citizen. There simply is no way to predict or plan for such a vaguely written law.

So why doesn't New Mexico just pass a law outlawing drinking and driving, period? What would happen to restaurants and bars? What would happen to tax revenue for the State? There is your answer. It is more cost effective to pass the burden on to the unlucky driver caught in the vagaries of New Mexico's DWI/DUI laws than to risk the loss of tax revenue with drafting a law that reflects the reality of DWI/DUI enforcement in New Mexico and particularly in Albuquerque where it may or may not be a crime to drink even a sip of alcohol and get behind the wheel.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Police Officers Not Qualified to Give Statistical Testimony

Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:52:41 -0700

The New Mexico Supreme Court addressed expert testimony given by police officer in DWI/DUI trials in State v. Marquez. The case involved an Albuquerque police officer who gave testimony regarding the statistical correlations between a suspect's performance on field sobriety tests and the probability of a blood alcohol score over .08.

The defendant's attorney had argued that the officer was not qualified as an expert to testify on statistical probabilities under the U.S. Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Interestingly, the State conceded that the testimony given by the officer was improperly admitted. Instead, the State argued that the admission of the evidence was harmless because there was sufficient legally admitted evidence for the conviction.

The case of State v. Marquez is interesting because the New Mexico Supreme Court found that the testimony was unnecessary for the conviction. The Court cited New Mexico Uniform Jury Instruction 14-4501 along with the well established New Mexico case law suggesting that the true standard is whether the defendant's ability to drive was impaired to the slightest degree.

The testimony of the officer undoubtedly would have established this without the statistical testimony. The officer testified that she saw the defendant stumble out of a bar, get in his car, almost strike another vehicle as he backed out of his parking space, and then back 60 feet into oncoming traffic on a congested and dangerous street. In addition, the officer testified that the defendant was slow to respond to questions, fumbled with his identification, was slow getting out of his vehicle, had to brace himself against his vehicle for balance and generally performed poorly on the field sobriety tests.

In light of impaired to the slightest degree standard, the statistical evidence was hardly necessary. However, the prosecutor got a little greedy perhaps and solicited the testimony anyway over the objection of the defense attorney. Basically, the officer gave testimony on statistical studies suggesting that poor performance on the field sobriety tests correlates to a high probability that the defendant's breath score exceeded the .08 limit.

The Court recognized that because of the impaired to the slightest degree standard, the breath alcohol score is not necessary for a DWI/DUI conviction in New Mexico. The Court further recognized that it is common knowledge that a breath score of over .08 is an indication of impairment. Thus, the testimony of the Albuquerque police officer, though unnecessary for a conviction, could have confused and misled the jury. In short, the testimony may have distracted the jury from its role of weighing properly admitted evidence by undue attention to the wrongfully admitted statistical evidence. In essence, the statistical evidence improperly undermined the credibility of the defendant.

Because the evidence was improperly admitted and could have confused or distracted the jury, the defendant's DWI conviction was reversed. The case was remanded for a new trial. In light of the evidence available to the State, and the Court's ruling that the breath alcohol score is unnecessary, the outcome of the new trial is likely to be the same as the first.

The case is somewhat paradoxical that the Court further restricts the bounds of admissible DWI evidence while at the same time reiterating its position that such evidence is unnecessary anyway. However, the case should prove important in cases where the evidence of intoxication is not so overwhelming as was the case here.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Pre-Indictment Delay: How Long is Too Long in New Mexico?

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:19:07 -0700

There are often delays in indictment on felony cases in Albuquerque, and throughout New Mexico. We often get questions regarding the legality of the delay in indictment following the first appearance.

When a felony action is commenced in Albuquerque, the case typically begins in the Metropolitan Court on a first appearance. During the first appearance, the court will address the statement of probable cause. The burden for probable cause is pretty low at this stage. The statement of probable cause need only establish that a crime was committed and that logically a jury could find the defendant guilty based upon that statement if true.

It is rare that the court would find probable cause lacking. In cases where probable cause is found, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Court judge will first address bond. Assuming that bond has been satisfied, the judge will set 60 day conditions of release. These conditions are fairly routine such as no further violations of the law, no contact with the alleged victim, no return to the scene of the crime, no deadly weapons, no drugs or alcohol, and no leaving the County without approval of the Court.

Many people accused of crimes believe that once the 60 days is up, the State is barred from taking the case to grand jury. That is not the case. The only consequence of failing to take the case to grand jury within the 60 day conditions of release is that those conditions lapse. The State is still free to bring the charges at a later date, and unfortunately for the defendant over whom the charges are hanging, often a much later date.

The only deadlines for getting the case to grand jury and formal charges filed is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for criminal cases in New Mexico are quite lengthy as set forth in by statute as follows:

• Capital or 1st degree violent felony - no limitation,
• 2nd degree felony - 6 years from the date of the crime,
• 3rd or 4th degree felony - 5 years from the date of the crime,
• Misdemeanor - 2 years from the date of the crime, and
• Petty Misdemeanor - 1 year from the date of the crime.

These deadlines are pretty lengthy so that a delay generally does not mean much regarding the intentions of the District Attorney. However, in less serious cases, no news is good news. In the meantime, if you are in this situation, you should keep your head down and avoid any contact with law enforcement. This means at a minimum staying out of trouble. It would be unfortunate to raise a red flag on an old case due to subsequent violations of the law.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Budgetary Realities May Force Changes In Albuquerque's Flawed DWI/DUI Enforcement

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 07:50:35 -0700

A series of articles over the last month point to significant budgetary issues facing law enforcement, the courts, and the District Attorneys offices across New Mexico. Albuquerque will feel the crunch as much as any.

In mid November, it was announced that the State police will be forced to cut back on hiring and training of new officers. The budget issues are so severe that the first 2 police academies for 2010 have been cancelled completely. The State Police was already short on officers. These additional cutbacks will leave the force stretched very thin.

The Second Judicial District Court in Albuquerque is down 23 positions. According to a national study, the court needs an additional 36 staff, and 10 judges to make it work correctly. In response, the clerk is cutting hours back even further to 10 AM to 4 PM. All court activities, including hearings, are being cut back as well. On Fridays, all court activity will close at 4:15 PM.

The DWI/DUI interlock fund for the poor is also running low. Interlock devices are mandatory for all DWI/DUI offenders. For those that refuse the breath alcohol test or blow .08 or over, the license revocation is automatic by Motor Vehicles Division (MVD). In addition, any driver convicted of DWI/DUI will be ordered by the court to have the interlock device for 1 year as a term of probation.

So what does any of this have to do with DWI/DUI enforcement in Albuquerque? It points to overburdened police departments, courts and district attorney's offices. Though I have not yet seen numbers of Albuquerque Police Department, the Metropolitan Court in Albuquerque, or the District Attorney's Office in Albuquerque, the trends are clear. Government budgets are in crisis in New Mexico and across the nation. Albuquerque is not immune.

All the while, Albuquerque Police and the Albuquerque District Attorney's office continue to burden the courts and state budgets with overzealous DWI /DUI enforcement. Albuquerque Police's DWI/DUI Unit continues to carry a 2 arrests per shift quota for its officers. Related to this quota is the continued and common practice of arresting drivers who are below the legal limit of .08 breath alcohol level. And then there are the DWI/DUI arrests of drivers who have not even been driving as with the recent veteran who was sleeping in his car to avoid driving while intoxicated.

Much of the impetus for these overzealous policies has arguably been driven by the quest for state and federal funding for DWI/DUI enforcement. These arrests, no matter how unfair and illogical, and in the case of arresting drivers for sleeping off a drunk contrary to public policy, helped push up the DWI/DUI statistics for Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico. With these statistics, the state was able to tap into federal funding, and Albuquerque was able to tap into both state and federal funding.

The well is running dry. So hopefully, the police will get back to enforcing the DWI/DUI laws in the spirit in which they were written. The State needs to keep drunk drivers off the road. That is the bottom line. A driver under the .08 limit is not legally drunk. If it is the intent to make it otherwise, then rewrite the law, or make it illegal to have any a sip of alcohol before getting in a vehicle. This raises all kinds of taxation issues as neither New Mexico nor Albuquerque can afford the loss of taxes associated with bars and restaurants. Again, it comes down to money.

Finally, don't encourage people to drive drunk by the threat of arrest for trying to do the right thing. Let drivers, encourage drivers to sleep it off. It makes no sense force a decision between driving drunk and being arrested for driving drunk for sleeping in your car. A gambling oriented individual would drive drunk. Thus this ridiculous trend endangers lives Perhaps that is not enough to halt to policy. If reason and logic fail, money never does. These policies are stretching an already overburdened court with cases that should not be there.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

10th Circuit Holds Common Drug Dealer Does Not Make a Conspiracy

Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:49:24 -0700

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a common drug supplier does not make a conspiracy. In U.S. v. Caldwell, Michael Caldwell was convicted for conspiracy to distribute marijuana with two other individuals based upon the mere presence of a common supplier to Caldwell and another party. The jury determined that the three men had entered into a single a three party conspiracy to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana over a two-year period.

The defendant admitted to a conspiracy with his supplier but denied the conspiracy with respect to the third party. It may sound like an inconsequential rhetorical argument but the finding of the tri-party conspiracy had significant consequences for Caldwell's sentencing. Because of the jury's erroneous finding of a three party conspiracy, the quantity of marijuana involved in the alleged conspiracy pushed Caldwell into a higher sentencing category.

The facts are pretty straightforward. Caldwell had purchased marijuana from Herrera. Caldwell then sold the marijuana to other users. A friend of Caldwell's, Anderson, source had dried up. Caldwell introduced therefore introduced Anderson to Herrera. Anderson then began buying his marijuana from Herrera. Caldwell received no economic benefit for the introduction nor was he involved in the exchanges between Herrera and Anderson other than the initial introduction.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that no single tri-party conspiracy existed. Instead, the government had shown only the existence of multiple conspiracies. The court stated that it is often difficult to distinguish between a single large conspiracy and several small conspiracies. However, the Court stated that it would not uphold the finding of large scale conspiracy by "piling inference upon inference...The evidence supporting the conviction must be substantial and do more than raise a suspicion of guilt."

Citing United States v. Sells (10th Cir. 2007), the Court set forth the following requirements for a finding of a conspiracy:

(1) two or more persons agreed to violate the law, (2) the defendant was aware of the essential objectives of the conspiracy, (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the conspiracy, and (4) the alleged co-conspirators were interdependent.

The pivotal question according to the court was the existence of interdependence of the parties which is present only where the co-conspirators intended to act in concert for their shared and mutual benefit. Citing U.S. v. Evans (10th Cir.1992).

The court boiled the issue down to the question of whether "the mere introduction of a common supplier, made by one drug dealer to another, is sufficient to create a single conspiracy among all the dealers?" The court concluded that it was not.

The finding of a single large scale conspiracy created an erroneous factual basis for Caldwell's sentence. The court should not have included quantities sold by Herrera to Anderson. The case was therefore remanded to district court for resentencing based purely upon the transactions established at trial between Caldwell and Herrera.