Opinion ID: 891604
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State v. Anaya

Text: {23} Reasonable suspicion in New Mexico is analyzed with the use of an objective test. In State v. Anaya , our Court of Appeals held that conduct premised totally on a mistake of law cannot create the reasonable suspicion needed to make a traffic stop; but if the facts articulated by the officer support reasonable suspicion on another basis, the stop can be upheld. Anaya, 2008-NMCA-020, ¶ 15, 143 N.M. 431, 176 P.3d 1163. {24} The facts in Anaya are similar to the instant case. The defendant in Anaya was observed to be weaving within his lane of traffic and was later stopped by a police officer after he failed to utilize his turn signal. Id. ¶ 2. After approaching the car and observing signs of intoxication, the officer arrested the defendant for DWI. Id. The defendant moved to suppress the DWI evidence on the basis that the initial stop was invalid because it was not supported by reasonable suspicion. Id. ¶ 3. At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that he did not observe any other cars in the area at the time of the stop and that he understood that the turn signal statute required the use of a turn signal in all circumstances. Id. Additionally, the officer did not testify that he was affected by the defendant's right turn. Id. The district court found that the defendant's traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and granted the motion to suppress the DWI evidence. Id. ¶ 4. {25} In affirming the district court's decision to suppress the evidence, the Anaya Court found that, although there could be cases in which the officer's vehicle could be considered affected traffic, depending on the evidence presented[,] . . . the facts as articulated by the officer do not support violation of the turn signal law. Id. ¶ 19. The Court also stated that [f]ailure to signal is not a per se traffic violation, despite [the] officer's good-faith understanding to the contrary, and also classified the officer's mistake as a mistake of law. Id. ¶ 17. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, the Court agreed with the district court's finding that the officer's vehicle was not traffic that could be affected by [the][d]efendant's failure to signal. Id. ¶ 19.