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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 32,746 4 YVETTE OTERO, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Stan Whitaker, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender 12 Vicki W. Zelle, Assistant Appe llate Defender, Metro Appeals 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15
MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s on record review and affirmance 1 of the metropolitan court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress. This Court 2 issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm the denial of Defendant’s motion to 3 suppress. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s notice of 4 proposed disposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm. 5 {2} Defendant contends that there was not reasonable suspicion to support the 6 officer’s stop of her vehicle. In this Court’s calendar notice, we relied on State v. 7 Contreras , 2003-NMCA-129, 134 N.M. 503, 79 P. 3d 1111, to propose that the 8 anonymous tip in the present case was sufficien tly specific to give rise to reasonable 9 suspicion given the late hour, the tipster’s sp ecific location, the lack of other traffic, 10 and the fact that the Mitsubi shi had a car traveling directly behind it and the tipster 11 had indicated he was traveling directly behind the suspected drunk driver. [CN 3] We 12 further suggested that, to the ex tent Defendant was arguing that Contrerasprovided 13 less protection than the federal government provided in Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 266 14 (2000), this Court in Contreras considered the applicability of J.L. and concluded that 15 the exigency present in drunk driving cases leads to a different result. 16 {3} In Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, she takes issue with this Court’s 17 assessment of the totality of the circumstances , stating that “[a] reviewing court is to 18 assess the totality of the circumstances in each case to determine whether the possible 193 danger to the public presents a sufficiently exigent circumstance that tips the balance 1 in favor of the stop.” [MIO 6-7] To the extent Defendant continues to rely on J.L. in 2 her opposition to this Court’s notice of proposed disposition to argue that the tip in 3 this case did not sufficiently demonstrate the tipster’s veracity, we again point out that 4 Contreras distinguishes J.L. based on the exigency that DWI presents. We agree that, 5 in distinguishing J.L. , Contreras“does not do away with the anonymous tip analysis 6 of credibility and reliability that the Fourth Amendment requires.” 2003-NMCA-129, 7 ¶ 21. However, given “the exigency of the possible threat to public safety that a drunk 8 driver poses, New Mexico’s grave concern about the dangers of drunk drivers, and the 9 minimal intrusion of a brief investigatory stop,” Contrerasholds that an anonymous 10 call providing information detailed enough for deputies to find the vehicle in question 11 and confirm the description is reasonabl e under the totality of the circumstances. Id. 12 We conclude that the circumstances pres ent in this case satisfy that standard. 13 {4} While Defendant argues that the exigency of this case was not great and that the 14 officer could have attempte d to corroborate the reported bad driving prior to stopping 15 Defendant, we note that requiring an officerto “expose the suspect and the public to 16 the danger of a drunk driver” in order to co rroborate a tip regarding erratic driving is 17 precisely the scenario that Contrerasis aimed at avoiding. Id. ¶ 15. Moreover, it is 18 the exigency of DWI in general, and not th e exigency created by a particular driver, 194 that Contreras determined gives rise to the excepti on that predictive information is not 1 required. To the extent Defendant is aski ng this Court to reconsider our decision in 2 Contreras , we decline to do so. 3 {5} For the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, 4 we affirm. 5 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

__________ ______________________ 7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 8
WE CONCUR: 9

________________________________ 10 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 11

________________________________ 12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 13