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

• Late at night, a car accident occurred involving the Defendant, who was found by an investigating officer in the driver's seat showing signs of alcohol consumption. The officer conducted a DWI investigation, including standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs), and arrested the Defendant. A breath test indicated the Defendant's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was 0.11 and 0.10. The State charged the Defendant with DWI and following too closely (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the metro court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence due to the State’s failure to collect material evidence, permitting the State to amend the complaint to add a different DWI theory after the close of evidence, determining that probable cause supported his arrest, and convicting him on all charges despite insufficient evidence (paras 1, 3-4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the metro court correctly denied the Defendant's motions and that the evidence, including the Defendant's BAC and the circumstances of the arrest, supported the convictions (paras 6-21).

Legal Issues

• Whether the metro court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence or sanction the State for failing to collect material evidence.
• Whether the metro court erred by allowing the State to amend the complaint after the close of evidence to add a different theory of DWI.
• Whether probable cause supported the Defendant’s arrest.
• Whether sufficient evidence existed to convict the Defendant on all charges (paras 1, 3-4).

Disposition

• The metro court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and to convict the Defendant of DWI and following too closely was affirmed (para 22).

Reasons

• BOGARDUS, Judge: The court found no abuse of discretion in the metro court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress or request for sanctions due to the State's failure to collect evidence, noting the absence of bad faith or gross negligence in the investigating officer's actions. The amendment of the complaint to include a per se DWI theory after the close of evidence did not prejudice the Defendant's substantial rights, and substantial evidence supported the metro court's finding of probable cause for the Defendant's arrest. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for DWI under both the per se and impaired to the slightest degree theories and for following too closely. Judges ATTREP and MEDINA concurred with the reasoning and conclusions of Judge BOGARDUS (paras 6-21).