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 involved in a single-car accident and was subsequently arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in the slightest degree. At the scene, the arresting officer, Officer Jeffrey Zamorano, observed that the Defendant had blood-shot watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, and admitted to consuming alcohol prior to the crash. The Defendant also had difficulty complying with the standard field sobriety tests administered by the officer (para 5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his arrest for suspected DWI was not supported by probable cause. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for DWI under the "slightest degree" alternative, questioning the weight of the evidence due to a knee injury that could have affected his performance on the field sobriety tests and suggesting that alternative tests should have been offered (paras 2, 7-8).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence presented, including the Defendant's admission of drinking, the physical observations made by the officer, and the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests, was sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest and to support the conviction for DWI in the slightest degree (paras 5-6, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress based on the argument that his arrest for suspected DWI was not supported by probable cause (para 2).
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI under the "slightest degree" alternative (para 8).

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the Defendant's conviction for first offender driving while intoxicated (DWI) in the slightest degree (para 10).

Reasons

• Per MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge (KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge and JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge concurring):
  The court reviewed the motion to suppress as a mixed question of law and fact, giving deference to the district court's findings if supported by substantial evidence and reviewing the application of the law de novo. It was concluded that probable cause existed for the Defendant's arrest based on the totality of circumstances observed by Officer Zamorano (paras 2-6).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the DWI conviction under the "slightest degree" alternative, the court found that the evidence, including the Defendant's erratic driving inferred from the accident, his admission of drinking, physical observations, and difficulty with field sobriety tests, was sufficient. The court also addressed the Defendant's claim about his knee injury affecting his performance on the field sobriety tests, stating that this was a matter of credibility for the fact-finder to assess (paras 7-9).