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 arrested and convicted for DWI. The arrest was based on observations by an officer, including speeding in a school zone, bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, a strong odor of alcohol, an admission to drinking, and mixed results of field sobriety testing.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the arrest lacked probable cause, challenged the denial of his motion to suppress based on the arresting officer’s alleged failure to comply with the SLD regulation requiring a 20-minute deprivation period before collecting the first breath sample, and contested the sufficiency of the evidence to support the DWI conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Presented evidence that the officer observed the requisite twenty-minute deprivation period before collecting the breath sample and argued that the collective observations at the time of arrest provided probable cause. Additionally, contended that the evidence was sufficient to support the DWI conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the arrest of the Defendant for DWI was supported by probable cause.
• Whether the arresting officer complied with the SLD regulation requiring a 20-minute deprivation period before collecting the first breath sample.
• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for DWI.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with CYNTHIA A. FRY and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judges concurring:
  The court found that the officer’s observations provided probable cause for the Defendant’s arrest for DWI, citing similar cases where observations of intoxication signs and field sobriety test results supported probable cause (paras 3, 5).
  Regarding the motion to suppress based on the alleged failure to observe a 20-minute deprivation period before breath sample collection, the court noted the State's evidence that the officer had observed the required period. The trial court's conclusion on this matter was deemed reasonable, emphasizing the role of the fact-finder in assessing evidence credibility and resolving conflicts (para 4).
  On the sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction, the court highlighted the State's presentation of various indicia of intoxication, including the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests, admission of alcohol consumption, and breath alcohol test (BAT) results. The court refused to re-weigh the evidence, underscoring the principle that appellate courts do not substitute their fact-finding for that of the jury when evidence supports the verdict (para 5).