Th is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c atio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Please s e e Ru le 1 2
- 4 0 5 N M RAf o r r e s tr ic ti o n s o nth e c it ati o no f unp u b li s h e d me mo r andum op ini on s. P lea se a lso no te that th is e le c tr on ic me mor and um o pin ion

may c onta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations f rom the officia l pa

per version filed by the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date
. 1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v
. N O. 34, 476 5 F R A N C I S C O R O D R I G U E Z, 6 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 7 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 8 St an le y W hi ta k er , D ist ri ctJu dg e 9 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 10 San ta Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Steven J. F orsberg, A ssistant Appellate D efender 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 fo r Appe llant 17 MEM ORA ND UM OP INION 18 GAR CIA , Jud ge. 19 { 1} D efend an t Fr an ci sc o R od rig ue z fi le d a do ck et in g st at em ent, a ppe al ing f ro m the2

1 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ff

irm an ce of

his c on victi on b y

c ondi tio na l pl ea

f or dr ivi ng whil e 2 unde r th e i n f l u e n c e o f i n t o x i c a t i n g l i qu o r

( f i r s to f f e n s e ) , c o n t r a ry

t o N M S A 1 9 78, 3 § 6 6- 8- 10 2 (2 01 0) . [DS 1 ] I n t h i s Co ur t’s n ot ic e o f pr op os eddi sp os it io n, we 4 pr opos ed

to ad opt the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s m em or an dum opi nio n af fi rm ing the c onvi ct ion
. 5 [C N 2] D ef

e n d a n tt i m e l y

f i l e dam e m o r an du m

i n o p p o s i t i o n . W e h a v e g i v e n due 6 co ns id erat io n t o t he m em or an du m in op po si ti on , an d , r em ai ni ng un pe rs ua de d, we 7 af fi rm D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion
. 8 { 2} Inhis m em or an dum in o ppos iti on, D ef en dant c ont inu es to ar gue that the 9 ro ad blo ck that r es ult ed

in the s top did

not sa tis fy the r equir em en t i n Ci tyof La s 10 Cr uc es v . B etanc ourt , 198 7- N MC A -0 39, ¶ 14, 105 N
. M. 655 , 735 P
. 2d 1 162, that the 11 roadblock be conducted and establi shed bysufficiently high-ranking supervisory law 12 enforce m en t personnel. [MI O 1] Specific ally , D efendant contends th at the district 13 co urt di d no t satis fy the m an da te in B etanc ourt that the reaso nable ne ss o f the 14 roadbl o ck b e closely scrutinized and that, as a r esult, the district court took an 15 im properly wide and perm issiv e view of w h o q ualifies as supervisory law 1 6 en fo rc emen tp er s o n n e l
. [ M IO 1 ] Se e id. ¶ 10. D ef en dant d oe s no t of

fe r an y 17 ex pl an at i o n or a ut ho rit y in su pp or t o f hi s co nt en ti on , se e Co rona v . Co rona , 201 4- 18 NMC A- 071, ¶ 2 8, 32 9 P. 3d 701 (“ This Court has no dutyto reviewan argum ent that 19 is not a de qua te ly

de ve lop ed
. ”) ; Cu rryv . G re at N w. I ns. Co

. , 201 4- N MC A -0 31, ¶ 28,3

1 320 P.3d 482 (“ Where a party cites no authorit y t o supp ort an argum ent, w e m ay 2 as s u m e n o s u ch au t h o ri t y e x i s t s .” ); ra t h er , h e mer el y as s er t s th atth e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 3 pur porte d “ w ide an d pe rm iss ive vie w ” w as c ontrary to B etanc ourt . W e ar e 4 unpe rs ua de d. 5 { 3} In ac co rd an ce w ith the re qui re m en ts se t f orth i n B etanc ourt , the district court 6 analy zed w hether the sergeant on scene wa s sufficiently high-ranking to qualify

as 7 superviso ry

lawenforce m ent personnel, considering th e fa cts that the sergeant w as 8 the DW I unit supervisor, wa s one of only fifteen ser geants in the departm ent, and was 9 the high est ranking official in the DW I unit. [R P 6 4

– 6 5 ] The district court 10 ad dit ion al ly

c onsi de re d th e fa ct s th at t he se rg eant d id n ot t ak e ca lls f or se rv ic e an d 11 did not int er ac t w iththe m oto ri ng p ubl ic on the nig ht o f the c he ck poi nt e xc ep t t o 12 flush vehicles through . [RP 65 ] The district court explained that the sergeant’ s entire 13 re spon sib ili ty

that ni ght

w as to en sur e that the c he ck poi nt o pe rate d purs uant t o th e 14 established g uidelin es and that this m eets the purpose of the B etanc ourt re qui re m en t 1 5 t o p re v en to ff

i ce r s i n t h e fi el dfr o m

ex er ci s i n g unb ri d l ed d i s cr et i o n . [ RP 6 5 ] W e 16 conclude that these cons iderations and th e analy sis un dertaken by the district court 17 w er e suf

fi ci en t t o m ee t the c los e- sc ru tin y standard r ef er en ced in B etanc ourt , 18 regardless of whether the district court expressly stated that it was undertaking such 19 a cl os e-s cru ti ny anal y si s. See 198 7- N MC A -0 39, ¶ 144

1 { 4} A cc or din gly , f

or the r ea sons se t fo rth in our not ic e of pr opos ed dis posi tio n and 2 herein, and for the r ea s o n s articulated in the m em orandum opini on of the dist rict 3 co urt, w e af

fi rm D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion
. 4 { 5} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 5

____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 6 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e 7 WE CO NCUR:
8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 9 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e
10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 11 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e