This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 version 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 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 33,677 4 CHARLENE BEGAYE, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Sandra A. Price, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Law Offices of the Public Defender 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 SUTIN, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant appeals the denial of her motion to suppress and her resulting 1 conviction for driving while intoxicated (D WI) in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 2 66-8-102(C)(1) (2010). We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition 3 proposing to affirm, and De fendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. We have 4 carefully reviewed the arguments made inthe memorandum in opposition, but for the 5 reasons stated herein and in the notice, we affirm. 6
{2} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition makes the same argument that was 7 raised in the docketing statement and whic h we proposed to reject in the notice of 8 proposed disposition. Defendant maintains that the arresting officer did not have 9 reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of her vehicle. [MIO 4-5] Defendant 10 points out that the officer testified only that he did not see Defendant’s passenger 11 fasten a seatbelt and that the seatbelt remained dangling after Defendant’s vehicle 12 began to move. [MIO 2, 5] She also poi nts out that the officer could not remember 13 whether the passenger might have moved to the center of the back seat, where the 14 passenger could have fasteneda seatbelt without using the shoulder-type seatbelt, and 15 in addition, he could not remember which side of the vehicle the passenger was sitting 16 in. [MIO 5] As Defendant acknowledge s, however, on appeal of a suppression 17 decision we do not sit as the trier of fact, and we recognize that the district court is in 18 the best position to resolve i ssues of witness credibility. State v. Neal , 2007-NMSC- 193 043, ¶ 15, 142 N.M. 176, 164 P.3d 57. In this case the district court specifically 1 credited the arresting officer’s testimony in the court’s findings and concluded that the 2 officer had observed a violation of the seatbe lt statute. [RP 90 (¶ 9)] This conclusion 3 is dispositive of Defendant’s contentions. It does not matter whether alternative 4 explanations could possibly explain the offi cer’s observations, because as the district 5 court found, the officer believed a traffi c violation had occurred and there was 6 evidence supporting that belief. Cf. id. ¶ 21 (noting that an officer is entitled to rely 7 on his or her own experience and specialized training to make inferences relevant to 8 reasonable suspicion, as long as the inferences are based on facts and do not amount 9 to a mere suspicion or hunch). 10
{3} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the di strict court’s denial of Defendant’s 11 motion to suppress. 12
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 15

WE CONCUR: 16

_______________________________ 17 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 184 _______________________________ 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2