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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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. A-1-CA-36956 4 JEFFREY GONZALES, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Josephine H. Ford, Assist ant Appellate Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 HANISEE, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant has appealed from convictions for DWI and failure to maintain lane. 1 We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant 2 has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain 3 unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 4
{2} Defendant does not dispute the relevant background information, as previously 5 described in the notice of proposed summary disposition. We will therefore avoid 6 undue reiteration, focusing instead u pon the content of the memorandum in 7 opposition. 8
{3} Defendant challenges the deni al of his motion to suppress, contending that the 9 traffic stop which led to his arrest and convictions was not s upported by reasonable 10 suspicion. [MIO 1-7] However, the offi cer’s observation of defendant’s repeated 11 weaving beyond the lane lines supplied an objectively reasonable basis for believing 12 that Defendant was violating numerous traffic laws. See NMSA 1978, Section 66-7- 13 317(A) (2015) (requiring that vehicles be driven as nearly as practicable entirely 14 within a single lane, and prohibiting moveme nt beyond such lane until the driver has 15 first ascertained that movement can be ma de with safety); NMSA 1978, Section 66-8- 16 102(A) (2016) (prohibiting driving under th e influence); NMSA 1978, Section 66-8- 17 114(A)-(B) (1978) (prohibiting careless driving); and see, e.g. , State v. Ruiz , 1995- 18 NMCA-098, ¶¶ 3, 24, 120 N.M. 534, 903 P.2d 845 (holding that an officer’s 193 observation of weaving was sufficient to es tablish reasonable suspicion to initiate a 1 DWI traffic stop); cf. State v. Salas , 2014-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 2, 12-16, 321 P.3d 965 2 (concluding that observation of swerving and crossing lines without signaling would 3 have been sufficient to support a conviction for failure to maintain lane, where nothing 4 in the record indicated that the defendantascertained that his movements could be 5 made with safety or that he was conscious of or focused on safety or risk). As a result, 6 the traffic stop was permissible. See generally State v. Peterson , 2014-NMCA-008, 7 ¶ 5, 315 P.3d 354 (observing that traffic stops are generally held to constitutionally 8 reasonable if the officer has atleast a reasonable suspicion to believe that the traffic 9 code has been violated). 10
{4} We understand Defendant to continue argue that his driving was not sufficiently 11 erratic or threatening to the safety of other drivers in the immediate vicinity to support 12 a traffic stop. [MIO 1-7] We disagree. As previously stated, the officer observed 13 repeated weaving beyond lane lines, with no apparent justification and without any 14 indication that Defendant was operating the vehicle with due regard to safety. In our 15 estimation, the officer was not required to “expose the suspect and the public to 16 [further] danger” under the circumstances. State v. Contreras , 2003-NMCA-129, ¶ 17 15, 134 N.M. 503, 79 P.3d 111. 184 {5} Accordingly, for the reasons statedin the notice of proposed summary 1 disposition and above, we affirm. 2
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

4 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 5 WE CONCUR: 6

7 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 8

9 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 10