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 stopped by Deputy Valente Marquez for running a red light. During the stop, the Deputy detected a strong odor of marijuana, observed the Defendant's watery bloodshot eyes, and noted the Defendant's admission to smoking marijuana. The Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests and recorded a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .06/.07. The Defendant was subsequently convicted in metropolitan court for first offender DWI (slightest degree) (paras 3, 5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the search for alcohol impairment and should have summoned a drug impairment expert instead. Maintained that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof by suggesting a rebuttable presumption of guilt based on the BAC results, which were not applicable as the case did not involve a commercial driver (paras 3-4, 6-7).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to prolong the search to investigate possible alcohol impairment.
• Whether the trial court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof by stating that the evidence presented by the State created a rebuttable presumption of guilt.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The Defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
• The matter was remanded to the metropolitan court with instructions to correct a typographical error in the judgment and sentence (para 1, 8).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Jennifer L. Attrep and Megan P. Duffy concurring, the court found that Deputy Marquez had reasonable suspicion of impairment to support a detention beyond the purpose of the traffic stop, based on the Defendant's behavior, the smell of marijuana, and the Defendant's poor performance on field sobriety tests. The court also concluded that the trial court did not impose a legally binding presumption of guilt based on the BAC results. Instead, it was determined that the court considered the BAC as part of the State’s case, which included independent evidence of impairment. The court addressed a typographical error in the judgment and sentence, which incorrectly referred to the Defendant’s conviction as based on the per se DWI alternative, and remanded the matter to correct this error (paras 2-8).