Our Chicago DUI Attorneys are never surprised by the lengths the Courts will go to convict people for misdemeanor DUI.  Check out the following case in which the Supreme Court of New Mexico changed the rules to validate what should have been an invalid arrest for DUI.

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Phone Tip DUI Conviction

New Mexico high court allows police to make warrantless drunk driving arrest without having seen the suspect drive.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has expanded the ability of police to jail suspects for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) by allowing arrests to be made solely based on third-party tips. The ruling was handed down two weeks after the same court had relaxed DUI arrest rules so that motorists sleeping off a night of drinking in their automobiles would not be hit with the same penalty as if they had driven away.

On December 22, 2007, Marcos Martinez was taken into custody for drunk driving in the city of Santa Fe not because an officer saw him commit a crime, but because someone who works at a mall called in a tip. Santa Fe Police Sergeant Troy Baker responded to the call which alleged that a man was staggering in the DeVargas Mall parking lot, eventually driving away in a van. The caller had provided a license plate, so Baker went to the van owner’s home to investigate. Inside the home, Martinez was clearly drunk and unlocked the door when Baker knocked. Baker entered and arrested Martinez.

A district court found the arrest unlawful under the common law “misdemeanor arrest rule” that states a suspect may only be arrested for a misdemeanor that is committed in an officer’s presence. The rule does not apply to felonies.   The court then decided that although the legislature had designated first-time DUI to be a misdemeanor and not a felony, it would rescind the common law tradition and create a new category — a misdemeanor that is not a “minor crime.”

So when the laws that are in place don’t suit the result that the Court wants, the Court just changes the laws.   Only in the context of drunk driving arrests would this not cause outrage.