This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper vers ion filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 CITY OF FARMINGTON, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 33,293 4 JENNIFER RUSSELL, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Karen L. Townsend, District Judge 8 Jason Eley 9 Farmington, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Harutiun Kassakhian 12 The Kassakhian Law Offices 13 Gallup, NM 14 L. Helen Bennett 15 L. Helen Bennett PC 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellant 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION 19 ZAMORA, Judge. 202 {1} Defendant appeals from her conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), 1 first offense. On appeal, Defendant challenges the district court’s denial of her motion 2 to suppress arguing that there was not reas onable suspicion to support her stop. This 3 Court issued a calendar notice proposing to reverse. The City of Farmington has filed 4 a response opposing this Court’s notice of proposed disposition. Having considered 5 the City’s response, we reverse. 6 {2} In this Court’s calendar notice, we pointedout that the City of Farmington bears 7 the burden of proving reasonable suspicion, see State v. Gonzales , 2011-NMSC-012, 8 ¶ 12, 150 N.M. 74, 257 P.3d 894, and that reas onable suspicion exists when police 9 officers “are aware of specific articulablefacts that, judged objectively, would lead 10 a reasonable person to believe criminalactivity occurred or was occurring.” State v. 11 Urioste , 2002-NMSC-023, ¶ 6, 132 N.M. 592, 52 P.3d 964 (internal quotation marks 12 and citation omitted). We noted that Officer Ronk testified at the suppression hearing 13 that he did not observe any traffic violations and that the sole reason he pulled 14 Defendant over was because hehad been informed of a “domestic disturbance.” [RP 15 121] We further noted that it did not appear that Officer Ronk was aware of any facts 16 to indicate that a physical altercation had occurred, and we suggested that a “domestic 17 disturbance,” alone, is not a crime, nor does it give rise to reasonable suspicion that 18 a crime has occurred. Ultimately, we proposedto conclude that, based on the facts of 193 this case, there did not appear to be “ objectively reasonable indications of criminal 1 activity[]” that would constitute reasonable suspicion. See State v. Leyva, 2 2011-NMSC-009, ¶ 23, 149 N.M. 435, 250 P.3d 861. 3 {3} In response, the City of Farmington c ontends that it was “reasonable for Officer 4 Ronk to make a stop of the De fendant based on information that was articulated to be 5 of a domestic nature” and that “[t]he information Officer Ronk had[] reasonably 6 supports either the crime of assault or battery.” [MIO 1] The City of Farmington has 7 neither identified additional facts known toOfficer Ronk, nor cited authority in 8 support of the proposition that a report of a “domestic disturbance,” with no additional 9 information, is sufficient to provide th e specific articulable facts necessary to 10 demonstrate reasonable suspicion. See State v. Sisneros , 1982-NMSC-068, ¶ 7, 98 11 N.M. 201, 647 P.2d 403 (“The opposing party to summary disposition must come 12 forward and specifically point out errors in fact and in law.”); In re Adoption of Doe , 13 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (providing that an appellate court 14 will not consider an issue if no authority is c ited in support of the issue, as absent cited 15 authority to support an argument, we assume no such authority exists). 16 {4} Consequently, for the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of 17 proposed disposition, we reverse. 18 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 194 ___________________________ 1 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 2

WE CONCUR: 3

__________________________________ 4 RODERICK KENNEDY, Chief Judge 5

__________________________________ 6 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 7