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 of driving while intoxicated after being stopped by an officer who observed the Defendant's truck crossing the yellow line several times before returning to its lane of traffic.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the officer's testimony was insufficient to establish a foundation for the admission of the breath alcohol test results and that the observed minor crossings of the center line did not provide reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.
• Appellee: Contended that the breath test was conducted in accordance with SLD regulations, providing a sufficient foundation for the test results' admission, and that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's vehicle due to its observed movements.

Legal Issues

• Whether a sufficient foundation was laid for the admission of the breath alcohol test results.
• Whether there was reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop of the Defendant's vehicle.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the breath alcohol test results were admissible and that there was reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The court found the officer's testimony regarding the breath alcohol test and the traffic stop to be sufficient. It was determined that as long as the breath test was conducted in accordance with SLD regulations, the foundational requirements for admitting the test results were satisfied. The officer testified to seeing a current SLD certificate for the machine and to conducting the test pursuant to SLD regulations, which the court deemed sufficient. Regarding the traffic stop, the court disagreed with the Defendant's argument that two minor crossings of the center line were insufficient for reasonable suspicion. The court held that any weaving in and out of the lane of travel provided a reasonable basis for an officer to suspect violation of traffic laws, affirming the reasonableness of the traffic stop and the subsequent conviction for driving while intoxicated.