1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: June 24, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 682 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 Z ACHARY DOPSLAF, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 APPEAL FROM THE DI STRI CT COURT OF BE RNALIL LO COUNT Y 11 C hr ist in a P . A rg yr es , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Margar et McL ean, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 17 San ta Fe, NM 18 Joseph ine H. Ford, Assistant Public Def ender 19 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 FR Y, Judge. 3 { 1} D ef

en da nt a ppe al s th e de nia l of

his m oti on t o su

ppre ss evi de nc e. D ef

en da nt 4 w as pul le d ov er

by pol ic e in d ow nto w n A lbu que rque , Ne w M ex ic o, a ft er he 5 perform ed a U -turn acr oss th e m iddle of t he street. De fendant argues that the officer 6 di d not have r ea sona

ble sus pic ionto pul l hi m ove r be ca

use the of

fi ce r inc or

re ct ly 7 be lie ve d th at

D ef en da nt v iol at ed N MS A 1978 , Se ct ion 66- 7- 319 (1 978) ( dr ivi ng o n 8 div ide d hi ghw ay s) w he n he m ad e the U -t ur n. W e co nc lud e tha t, e ve n a ssu m ing the 9 of fi ce r w as m ist ak en ab out the ap pli ca tio n of S ec tio n 66 -7 -3 19, the of fi ce r’ s m ist ak e 10 wa s reasonable, and the officer had reasonable s u s p i ci on to p ull Defe ndant ov er. 11 Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . 12 BACKGRO UND 13 { 2} As an initial m atter, we clarify that our reviewof the fac ts in thi s case is lim ited 14 to O ff ic er D an ie l B ur ge ’ s te sti m ony be ca use th is wa s th e onl y

e vid en ce pr es en te d. 15 T he re fo re , w e do n ot c onsi de r D ef en da nt’ s st at em en ts at sentenc ing r eg ar din g th e 16 sto p, nor

do w e co nsi de r the dia gr am s De fe ndant inc or por at ed in his br ie f on a

ppe al
. 17 { 3} O ff

ic er Burg e te sti fi ed

that he f irst obs er ve d D ef en da nt’ s ve hic le park ed

on 18 Ce ntr al A ve nue in dow nto w n A lbu que rque . O ff ic er Burg e obse rv ed

D ef en da nt p ull 19 ou t o f th e p ark in g s po t an d p erfo rm a U
- t u r n a c r o ss a “ pa in te d c en te r m ed ia n.”2

1 10:3 5: 05 ] A f

t e r p e r f or m i ng t he U
- tur

n, D e f e nd a nt s pe d of f d own C e ntr a l
. O f

ficer 2 Burge followed D efendant and pulled hi m over. Up o n approaching th e vehicle, 3 O ff ic er Burg e te sti fie d th at

he sm el le d a lc ohol a nd tha t D ef en da nt a ppe ar ed to be 4 int oxi ca te d. Fo llo w ing D ef en da nt’ s pe rf

orm an ce on the fi el d sobr ie ty te sts an d a 5 subs equent chem ical test, he wa s arre sted and c harged with DW I. He wa s also cited 6 fo r vio la tin g S ec tio n 66 -7 -3 19. 7 { 4} Of

ficer Burge described the “pain t ed center m edian” that De fendant crossed 8 as c onsi sti ng o f a sol id y el lowli ne on the out sid e w ith a dott ed y el lowli ne on the 9 in si de . Giv en th atOffic er Bu rg e te st i f i e d t ha t t he se m ark in gs crea te d a m ed ia n, we 10 understand h is description to includ e tw o sets of these m arking s o ff s etting an 11 unpa int ed

portio n of

the r oa d. O ff

ic er Burg e furthe r te sti fi ed tha t at both en ds of the 12 m ed ian w er e w hit e tur n bay s c or

re spon din g to the int er sect ion s a t the e nds of the 13 block. De fendant, however, crossed at the center portion of the m edian, not at either 14 of the int er se ct ion s. O ff

ic er Burg e te sti fi ed

that the re is no p la ce in w hic h to tur n f ro m 15 this m edian, such as a side stree t, bec ause the block is lin ed with busin esses. O ffice r 16 Burg e furthe r te sti fi ed tha t law e nf or ce m en t of

fi ce rs of te n us e the se m ed ians t o park
. 17 While Off

icer B urge also stated that he had never p er s o n ally witnessed a delivery 18 vehicle p a rke d i n t he c e nt e r m e di a n, h e a c kn ow l e dg e d t hati tw a s c on c e i va bl e t ha t 19 one c o u l d
. F ina lly , O ff ic er Burg e te sti fi ed

that, a lth oughthe re w as no s ignpr ohi bit ing3

1 U -t ur ns on the str ee t, he be lie ve d tha t D ef en da nt’ s a ct ion s vi ola te d S ec tio n 66 -7 -3 19 2 be ca use he c ro sse d th e sol id y el lowli ne s and the m ed ian. 3 { 5} D ef

en da nt m ove d to sup pr es s e vid en ce a t tri al in m et ro po lit anc ourt onthe 4 ba sis that the sto p vi ola te d the Fo urth A m en dm en t be ca use O ff ic er Burg e did

not 5 ha ve r ea sona

ble sus pic ionto be lie ve that D ef en da nt co m

m itt ed atr af fi c vio la tio n. 6 T he m etro pol itan c ourt co nc lu de d th at O ff ic er Burg e ha d r ea sona

ble sus pic ionto 7 believe that Def

endant vio lated Section 66-7-319 because the painted m edian 8 co nst itu te d an “ int er

ve nin g sp ac e” or

a“ cl earl y

ind ic at ed

div id in g se ct ionso 9 co nstru ct ed

a s to im pe de ve hic ular tr af

fi c” a nd d en ie d th e m oti on. S ec tio n 66 -7 -3 19. 10 T he m etro pol itan c ourt subse que ntl y co nvi ct ed D ef en da nt of D W I an d viola tio n of 11 Secti o n 66-7-319. Def endant then appealed to th e district court. T he district court 12 affi rm ed . Defen da nt no w app eal s t o t hi s C ou rt. 13 DISC US SION 14 { 6} D ef

en da nt c ha lle nge d th e st op unde r the F our th A m en dm en t. O ur

r ev ie w is 15 the re fo re li m ite d to the r ea sona ble sus pic iona na ly sis und er the F ourth A m en dm en t 16 an d no t un de r an y

pot en tia l br oa de r pr ote ct ion s af fo rd ed by A rt ic le II , Se ct ion 10 o f 17 th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. Se e Sta te v . H ubbl e , 2009 -N MSC- 014, ¶ 6, 146 N.M. 18 70, 206 P.3d 579. The basis of Defendant’ s challenge is that Off icer B urge com

m itted 19 a m ist ak e of

law in be lie vin g th at Defe ndant’ s U -t ur n c onst itu te d avio la tio n of4

1 Section 66-7-319. Because of Of ficer Burge’ s alleged m istake, D efendant argues that 2 re as ona

ble sus pic iondid

not e xis t t o j ust if

y the sto p. 3 Stand ard of R eview 4 { 7} “ A rev ie w of t he su pp res si on of ev id en ce is a m ix ed qu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct .” 5 State v. A naya , 20 08 -NMCA- 02 0, ¶ 5 , 14 3 N
. M
. 43 1, 1 76 P.3d 11 63 . Whi le we 6 ge ne ra lly

de fe r to the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s fin din gs of fa ct if the fi ndi ngs ar e supp orte d by 7 su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, id
. , as am ixe d qu es tio n of lawa nd f

ac t, w e de te rm ine 8 co ns ti tu ti on al reas on ab le ne ss de no vo . St at e v. Van de rb er g, 2003 -N MS C- 030, ¶

19, 9 13 4 N.M. 3 66 , 81 P.3d 19
. 10 Mistak es of Law and R easonable Suspic ion Un der the Four th A m endm ent 11 { 8} “ Si nc e anauto m obi le sto p is c onsi de re d ase iz ur e unde r the F ourth and 12 Fo urte en th A m en dm en ts, it m ust be c ondu ct ed

in a re as ona

ble m an ne r to s at isf

y the 13 Fourth Am endm ent.” H ubbl e , 200 9- N MS C- 014, ¶ 7 ( int er na l qu ota tion m ar

ks and 14 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). T he re fo re , “ [b ] ef or e a pol ic e of

fi ce r m ak es atr af

fi c sto p, he m

ust 15 have a re asonable sus pici o n o f ill egal activity .” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 16 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ A re as ona ble sus pic ion is a pa rt ic ulari ze d su spi ci on, ba se d ona ll 17 the circum stances th at a particular indiv idual, the one detained, is breaking , or has 18 b ro k en , the law. ” State v. Jason L. , 2 0 0 0
- N M S C
- 0 1 8 , ¶ 2 0 , 1 2 9 N
. M
. 1 1 9 , 2 P
. 3d 19 856. T he appe llate c ourts “ w ill f ind r ea sona ble sus pic ionif

the of fi ce r is aw ar e of5

1 spe ci fi c ar

tic ula ble f ac ts, tog ethe r w ithr at ion al in fere nc es f ro m tho se f ac ts, that, 2 w he n j udge d ob

j ec tiv el y , w oul d le ad

ar ea sona ble pe rs on t o be lie ve cr im ina l a ct ivi ty 3 occurred or w as occurring.” H ubbl e , 2009 -N MS C- 014, ¶ 8 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 4 and citation om itted). 5 { 9} The issue p resented in this case is whether an officer ’ s m istake of law can form 6 th e ba si s o f th e o ffi cer’s re as on ab le su sp ic io n t o i ni ti at e th e tr affi c st op . See id. ¶ 22 7 (“ A m istake of law is a m istake about th e legal ef fect of a known fac t or situation [. ] ”). 8 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ))
. I n Anaya , thi s Court, in line w iththe 9 m aj or ity

pos iti on at the tim e, he ld tha t wh ile “ co nduc t pre m ise d to ta lly on a m ist ak e 10 of law cannot cr ea te the re as ona ble sus pic ionne ed ed

to m ak e a tr af

fi c sto p[ , ] if

the 11 fa ct s art ic ula te d by

the of fi ce r supp ort r ea sona

ble sus pic ionon anothe r ba sis , the sto p 12 can be uph el d. ” 2008 -N MC A -0 20 , ¶ ¶ 7, 15. I n H ubbl e , our S uprem e Court 13 co nc lud ed , in dic ta , that the hol din g in A n a ya w a s co n s i s t en twi t h Ne w M ex i co ’s 14 reas on ab le su sp ic io n a na lysis
. Hub bl e, 2009-NMSC-0 14, ¶ 27 ( “ Ine sse nc e, the 15 second part o f the Anaya propos ition [that reasonable suspicion on a basis oth er than 16 the m ist ak e of law can j ust if y the sto p] is our obj ec tiv e te st for reason ab le 17 sus pic ion
. ”)
. T he Co urt st at ed that “ it is n ot f

at al in te rm s of

r ea sona ble sus pic ionif 18 anof fi ce r m ak es am istak e of la w when h e co nduc ts a tr af fi c sto p; c ourts w ill sti ll 19 loo k ob

j ec tiv el y to the tot al ity

of the c ir cu m stanc es sur

ro undi ng the of

fi ce r’ s de ci sio n6

1 to c ondu ct

the tr af fi c sto p inor de r to de te rm ine if he or she ha d r ea sona

ble 2 susp icion.” Id

. ¶ 28. 3 { 10} How ever, Anaya ’s h o l d i n g t h at a s t o p c a n n o tb e ju s t i fi ed b y an o ff i ce r’s 4 reasonable m istake of law wa s rece ntly rej ected by the United States S uprem e Court 5 in H ei en v . No rth Ca rol ina , ___ U
. S. ___ , ___ , 135 S
. Ct
. 530 ( 2014 ). I n He ien , the 6 Su pr em e Co urt he ld tha t an of fi ce r’ s r ea sona

ble m ist ak e of

lawc ou ld su pp or t a 7 fi ndi ng o f re as ona

ble sus pic ionto co nduc t a law fu l tra ff

ic sto p un der th e Fo urth 8 Am en dm en t. Id

. at 534. T he Court cautioned that “ [t] he Fourth Am endm ent tolerates 9 o n l y re ason abl e m ist ak es , a nd those m ist ak es —w he the r of fa ct or of law—m ust be 10 objectively reasonable.” Id

. a t 53 9. T hus, the of

fi ce r’ s su bj ec tiv e unde rs tandi ng of the 11 law is im

m at er ia l, an d “ an of

fi ce r can ga in n o F ourth A m en dm en t a dvanta ge thr ough 12 a sloppystudyof the law s he is duty -bound to enforce. ” Id

. a t 53 9- 40. 13 { 11} Beca

use A nay a h o l d s t h at a s t o p ca n n o t b e b as ed t o t al l y o n an o ff i ce r’s 14 reas on ab le m is ta ke of l aw, Anaya , a nd o ur S upr em e Co urt’ s di ct a in Hubble af fi rm ing 15 tha t ana ly sis , no lon ge r re pr es en t the appr opr ia te inquir y und er the F ourth 1 6 A m en dm e n t . Wh i l e w e a c kn o w l e d g e t h a t “ [ a ] p p e a l s i n t h i s C o u rt a r e g o v e rn e d by 17 the de ci sio ns o f the N ewMe xic o S upr em e Co urt— inc lud ing de ci sio ns i nvol vin g 1 8 fe d er al l aw , a n dev en wh en a U n i t ed St at es Su p re m e C o u rt d ec i s i o n s ee m s co n t ra [, ]” 19 Dalt on v. Santander Consumer U SA, Inc. , 2 0 1 5
- N M C A
- 0 3 0 , ¶ 3 0 , 3 4 5 P
. 3 d108 617 D ef

en da nt d oe s no t se pa rate ly ar gue tha t his conv ic tio n un de r Se ct ion66- 7- 1 18 319 was im

proper. Ther efore, we lim it our analy sis to whether the trial court e rred 19 in d en y ing the m oti on t o su ppr es s, i. e. , w he the r O ff

ic er Burg e co m

m itt ed a r e a s ona ble 20 m istake of l aw when he stopp ed De fendant, no t whether De fendant actually violated 21 Sect io n 6 6- 7- 31 9. 7 1 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o mitt ed ), we co nc lu de th at , H ubbl e 2 notw ith standi ng, the appr opriat e te st to a ppl y in thi s c as e is tha t f

ound in He ien
. 3 H ubbl e ’ s discuss ion of Anaya ’ s ho ldi ng i s d i c t a a n d , a s s u c h , i s n o tb i n d i n g au t h o r i t y. 4 Se e Hub bl e, 2009 -N MS C- 014, ¶ 21 ( co nc lud ing that the de fe ndant w as prop er ly 5 stopp ed for a violation of the traf fic code but stating th at “ in order to clarify the law 6 regarding reasonable suspicion , w e take this oppo rtunity to discus s m istakes of law 7 an d m ist ak es of

f ac t an d howthe y

int er ac t w ithr ea sona

ble sus pic ion ”) ; State v. 8 Jo hnso n , 200 1- N MS C- 001, ¶ 16, 130 N
. M. 6, 15 P. 3d 1 233 (s ta tin g th at a lth oughthe 9 Co urt of App ea ls s houl d gi ve de fe re nc e to S upr em e Co urt di ct a, it is not bin din g 10 au tho ri ty ). A cc or din gly , w e nowtur n to the f ac ts o f thi s c as e as vie w ed thr oughthe 11 lens of the H

ei en de ci sio n. 12 { 12} Pe rh ap s o wing to the inqu iry under A naya , D efendant’ s argum ent seem s geared 13 m ore toward showing that De fendant did not actually violate Section 66-7-319 rather 14 than toward ar guin g that a m i s t ake of law , a ssum ing on e w as com m itted, w as 15 unr ea sona

ble
. D ef en da nt ci te s nu m er ous se ct ion s of the Manua l onU nif

orm T ra ff ic 1 16 Co ntr ol De vic es ( MU T CD ) an d th e N ewMe xic o S igna nd S tr ipi ng M anua l i n8

1 arguing that Def

en d ant could no t have violated Section 66-7-31 9. H owever , e ven 2 unde r the str ic te r te st u til iz ed in Anaya , the determ ination of whether an officer had 3 “ re as ona

ble sus pic ionto m ak e the tr af fi c st op do es not

hin ge on whe the r [the 4 d] efendant actually

violated the un derly ing . .
. statute.” H ubbl e , 200 9- N MS C- 014, 5 ¶ 9. In re sta tin g D ef

en da nt’ s ar gum en ts in lig ht of the pr ope r standard , w e unde rs tand 6 his m ain poin t to be that, given the “ broken line” pave m en t m arki ngs, it was 7 objec tively

unreasonable for O ffice r Burge to believe that cr ossin g over the m edian 8 was a vi ol at io n o f Sec ti on 66 -7 -3 19
. 9 { 13} Se ct ion66- 7- 319 sta te s: 10 Whe ne ve r an y hig hw ay ha s be endiv ide d in to tw o r oa dw ay s by 11 leaving an intervening space o r by a p hy sical barrie r or cle arly indicated 12 divid ing section so construc t ed as to im pede vehicular traf

fic, every 13 ve hic le sha ll be dr ive n on ly upo n th e ri ght -h an d ro adw ay an d no v eh ic le 14 sh al l be dri ve n ov er, acros s or with in an y su ch di vi di ng sp ace, b arri er[,] 15 or

se ct ion , e xc ep t thr ougha n op en in g insuc h ph y sic al barr ie r or 16 div idi ng s ec tio n or spa ce or at a cr oss ove r or int er se ct ion es ta bli she d by 1 7 p ub l i c au t h o r i t y. 18 T he te rm

“ hig hw ay , ” as use d inthe statut e, is syno nym ous w ith“ str ee t” a nd i s 19 de fi ne d a s “ ev er

y w ay or pla ce ge ne ra lly

ope n to the use of the pub lic a s am at te r of 20 ri ght f or the pur pose of ve hic ular tr av el [. ] ” N MS A 1978 , § 66- 1- 4. 8( B) ( 1991 ). Whil e 21 the r oa d at i ssu e w oul d cle ar ly fa ll unde r the de fi nit ion of “ hig hw ay , ” ce ntr al to thi s 22 ca se is w he the r the m ed ian a t issue cr ea te s a “ div ide d highw ay ” unde r Se ct ion66- 7- 23 319. The statute delineate s three general indicators that a particular stree t is a divided9

1 high way : whe re the re is an“ int er ve nin g sp ac e, ” a “ phy sic al barr ie r, ” or a“ cl earl y 2 indicated dividing section so con structed as to im pede vehicular traf

fic[. ] ” Id

. Based 3 on O ff ic er Burg e’ s tes ti m ony

a nd the f

ac t tha t D ef

en da nt e xe cu te d aU -t

ur n, it is 4 undi sput ed

that no phy sic al ba rr ie r se pa rate d th e tw o lane s of tr af fi c. T he re fo re , the 5 iss ue is w he the r it w as obj ec tiv el y r ea sona ble f or O ff ic er Burg e to b el ieve tha t the 6 m ed ian c onst itu te d an “ int er ve nin g spac e” or “ cl earl y ind ic at ed div idi ng s ec tio n” so 7 as to be co ns id ered a “ di vi de d h ig hwa y ” u nd er Se ct io n 6 6- 7- 31 9. 8 { 14} W e first c larify

that the fact that the m edian in this case w as off-se t by painted 9 m ar kin gs i s not de te rm ina tiv e. T he statut e its el f is n ot s pe ci fi c on this poi nt. 10 How ever, the Ne w Mexico Adm inistrative Code indicates that divided high way s can 1 1 b e c r e a t e d b y “s t a n d a r d p a v e men tmar k i n g s [
. ]” NM A C 1 8
. 3 1
. 6
. 7 ( A D )
. Ac c o r d i n g l y, 12 it is, at the le as t, obj ec tiv el y r ea sona ble to co nc lud e that “ standard pa ve m en t 1 3 mar k i n g s ” a r e al e g i t i mat e mea n s o f c r e a t i n g ad i v i d e dh i g h w a y. 14 { 15} S ec tio n 66 -7 -3 19 doe s no t pr ovi de gui da nc e as to the ty pe s of pa ve m en t 15 m ar kin gs r equir ed

to es ta bli sh an in te rv en ing spa ce or div ide d se ct io n. De fe ndant 16 the re fo re a rg ue s th at , ba se d onna tio na l tra ff ic standard s, the pa ve m en t m ar kin gs i n 17 this case cannot be construed to create an intervening sp ace or divid ed section und er 18 Se ct ion66- 7- 319. Ci tin g th e MU T CD , D ef en da nt arg ue s th at

br oke n li ne s indic at e 19 a “ pe rm iss ive c ondi tio n, ” w he reas a “ sol id l ine dis co ur ag es or pr ohi bit s c ro ssi ng10

1 (d ep en din g onthe spe ci fi c ap pli ca tio n) , ” MU T CD , § 3A
. 06( 01) (B ), ( C) ( 2009 ), a nd 2 that, in cer

tain contexts, the com

binatio n of a solid y ellow and broken line indi cates 3 a l an e t h at ca n b e u s ed b y t ra ff i c i n ei t h erd i re ct i o n . Ag ai n co n s t ru i n g De fe n d an t ’s 4 ar gum en t in light of the pr ope r standard , his ar gum en t i s th at it w as unr ea sona

ble f or 5 O ff ic er Bu rge to b el ie ve that c ro ssi ng o ve r the se ty pe s of pa ve m en t m ar

kin gs 6 co nst itu te d avio la tio n of S ec tio n 66 -7 -3 19. 7 { 16} D ef

en da nt’ s re fe re nc es to the MU T CD hig hli ght the a m big uity pr es en te d by 8 the facts in this case. The MUT CD does not sp ecifica lly discuss th e m edian described 9 in O ff ic er Burg e’ s te sti m ony . A nd i nc lud ed in the MU T CD ’ s e xa m

ple s c ite d by 10 D ef en da nt are o the r m ar

kin gs tha t c onc ei vably

dis tin gui sh the e xa m

ple s f ro m the 11 pr es en t c as e. T he se oth er m ar kin gs i nc lud e the pr es en ce of le ft tur n arro w s w ith in a 12 m edian sim ilar to the one described by Of ficer Burge, or the use of y ellow lines that 13 de not e “ [t ] he se pa ratio n of tr af fi c tr av el ing in oppo sit e dir ec tio ns” or “ [t ] he le ft -h an d 14 edge of the roadway s of divid ed high way s.” MUT CD, § 3A. 05(03)(A), (B) (2009). 15 A s Ju sti ce K ag anstate d inhe r co nc ur re nc e in He ien , statut es that po se “ a re al ly 16 dif fi cu lt or ve ry ha rd que sti on o f sta tut or y int er pr et at ion ” le nd c re de nc e to the 17 co nc lus ionthat an of fi ce r m ad e a re as ona

ble m ist ak e of

law . 135 S
. Ct
. a t 54 1 18 (K ag an , J. , c onc ur

ri ng) ( int er

na l qu ot ationm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). I f the iss ue 19 be fo re us w as w he the r D ef en da nt a ct

ua lly vio la te d S ec tio n 66 -7 -3 19, the se11

1 am big uit ie s w oul d re qui re int en siv e int er pr et at ion to r es olv e. Bu t, a s to the que sti on 2 pr es en te d inthi s c as e, the m ult itu de of

MU T CD pr ovi sio ns and d ia gr am s r equir ed to 3 de te rm ine w he the r it w as pe rm iss ibl e to c ro ss the m ed ian te nd t o su ppo rt the 4 reaso na bl en es s o f Offi cer B ur ge ’s bel ie f th atDefen da nt co m m it te d atra ffi c v io la tion. 5 { 17} Ther efore, even assum ing, as De fendant argues, that the broken line perm itted 6 entry into th e m edian, w e conclu d e t h at it wa s objectively rea sonable for Of

ficer 7 Burge to believe that the m edian was designed to prohib it Defendant’ s m aneuver. 8 That is, it is reasonable to believe that the use of a com binatio n of solid and broken 9 y el lowli ne s to f

orm am ed ian pe rm itt ed en try i nt o th e m ed ian f or c er ta in 10 pur pose s—s uc h a s f

or use by pol ic e of

fi ce rs , a s O ff

ic er Burg e te stif

ie d—b ut 11 prohibi ted crossing com pletely over the m edian from one lane o f traffic to th e other. 12 The la ck of definitive guid ance u n der Se ction 66 -7-319 as to what constitut es an 13 intervening space or a clear ly indicated divid ed section, in com binatio n with O ffice r 14 Burg e’ s ob se rv at ionof D ef en da nt c ro ssi ng tw o so lid y el lowli ne s, is suf

fi ci en t t o 15 m ak e th e st op , ass um in g i t was a m is ta ke of la w, a rea so na bl e o ne . See H eien , 135 S. 16 Ct. at 541 (Kagan, J., concurring) (“ If the statute is genu inely am bigu ous, such that 17 overturning the officer ’ s j udgm ent requires hard interpretative work, then the off icer 18 ha s m ad e a re as ona

ble m ist ak e. ”)
. A cc or din gly , O ff ic er Burg e ha d r ea sona

ble 19 susp icion to p ull Defe ndant ov er. Beca use Def endant did not ar gue that the stop wa s12

1 unreasonable or pretextual under Artic le II, Sec tion 1 0 of the Ne w Me xico 2 Co ns ti tu ti on , ou r an al y si s en ds wit h t hi s d et erm in at io n. 3 CON CLU SION 4 { 18} Fo r the f

or eg oin g reason s, w e af fi rm the de nia l of

D ef en da nt’ s m oti on t o 5 su pp res s. 6 { 19} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 8 C Y N TH IAA . F R Y , Ju dg e
9 I CONCUR:
10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 11 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e
12 ROD ERIC K T. KEN NED Y, Judge, dissentin g13

1 KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e (d iss en ti ng ) 2 ( 20) I re spe ct fu lly

dis se nt. A lbu que rque Mun ic ipa l Code § 8-2- 6- 10 (19 75) pe rm its 3 any U- turn that c an “ be m ade in safety and without int erfe ring with any other traf fic, 4 an d ther e is no sign pro hib iti ng a U- tur n”
. I do not bel ie ve the of fi ce r’ s m ist ak e of 5 law wa s ob

j ec tiv el y r ea sona ble
. T he Me tr opol itan C ourt’ s stre tc h of c onstru ct ion 6 inv olv ing “ cl earl y

dr ivi ng s ec tio n so c onstru ct ed a s to im pe de ve hic ular tr av el ” is 7 unhe lpf

ul. 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 9 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e