Consequently, our Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the issue on certiorari review. See State v. Sanchez , 2015-NMSC-018, ¶ 26, 350 P.3d 1169 ("The general rule is that cases are not authority for propositions not considered." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

The New Mexico Supreme Court later declined to extend its holding in Cardenas-Alvarez to an international border checkpoint. State v. Sanchez, 2015-NMSC-018, ¶ 28, 350 P.3d 1169. ¶ 51.

{¶48} The first reason we decline to apply the newly adopted per se exclusionary rule is because Martinez is silent with regard to in-court identification procedures and only "overrule[d] prior cases to the extent that they apply the Manson reliability standard to determine whether unnecessarily suggestive, police-arranged, pretrial identifications are nonetheless admissible." Martinez, 2021-NMSC-002, ¶ 72; see State v. Sanchez, 2015-NMSC-018, ¶ 26, 350 P.3d 1169 ("The general rule is that cases are not authority for propositions not considered." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted))

"The general rule is that cases are not authority for propositions not considered." State v. Sanchez , 2015-NMSC-018, ¶ 26, 350 P.3d 1169 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see, e.g. , Dominguez v. State , 2015-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 15-16, 348 P.3d 183 (declining to rely on a case for a proposition because the parties in that case did not appear to raise the argument now being considered). Accordingly, the State's reliance on Guzman is unavailing.

We review issues of constitutionality de novo. State v. Sanchez , 2015-NMSC-018, ¶ 9, 350 P.3d 1169 ("If a constitutional provision applies, claims arising under it are ... reviewed de novo."). Defendant does not cite a single case supporting the notion that bifurcation is constitutionally required in every case, nor do we find any.

Here, AAA is available to administer the parties' arbitration, unlike Rivera . Also, the AAA rules provide that in certain circumstances, a designated arbitrator may be disqualified and replaced. Interpretation of the Arbitration Agreement in this case goes beyond the scope of the Court's analysis in Rivera . See State v. Sanchez , 2015–NMSC–018, ¶ 26, 350 P.3d 1169 (holding that "cases are not authority for propositions not considered" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, we decline to adopt the Kirschenbaums' interpretation of the Arbitration Agreement under Rivera . To do so would unreasonably treat as equivalent an unavailable arbitration provider and a disqualifiable arbitrator.