AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for DWI. The arresting officer conducted a cursory check to ensure the Defendant had not eaten, drunk, or smoked anything for at least twenty minutes before collecting the first breath sample. The Defendant was then handcuffed, placed in a patrol vehicle, and subjected to a breath-alcohol test thirty-two minutes after the arrest, which registered 0.11 twice. The Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol prior to driving.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the motion to suppress should have been granted because the arresting officer failed to comply with the SLD regulation by not ascertaining that the Defendant had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke for at least twenty minutes prior to the collection of the first breath sample. The Defendant also claimed to have had gum in his mouth, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the DWI conviction.
• Appellee: The State contended that the officer conducted a sufficient check by observing the Defendant's mouth and ensuring he had no access to anything he might place in his mouth after being handcuffed. The State also presented evidence of the Defendant's intoxication through observed behavior, failed field sobriety tests, breath-alcohol test results, and the Defendant's admission of alcohol consumption prior to driving.

Legal Issues

• Whether the arresting officer's actions complied with the SLD regulation requiring ascertainment that the Defendant had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke for at least twenty minutes prior to the collection of the first breath sample.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's DWI conviction.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring): The court found that the officer's cursory check of the Defendant's mouth and subsequent actions were sufficient to comply with the SLD regulation, as the Defendant was observed closely and had no access to anything he might place in his mouth after being handcuffed (para 2). The court also held that the evidence presented by the State, including the officer's observations, the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests, breath-alcohol test results, and the Defendant's admission of alcohol consumption, was sufficient to support the conviction for DWI. The court rejected the Defendant's request to re-weigh the credibility of witnesses, stating that it does not substitute its determination of facts for that of the jury when there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict (para 3).