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 for DWI (per se, first offense) after Officer Golson observed signs of impairment, including bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, a moderate odor of alcohol, and the Defendant's admission of having one drink. Additionally, the Defendant did not perform satisfactorily on standardized field sobriety tests. At the time of the arrest, the Defendant was found sitting behind the wheel of a parked vehicle with the ignition on, in a bar parking lot close to closing time. The Defendant and his girlfriend had just been expelled from the bar. The Defendant argued that the vehicle was running for privacy during an argument and that his red eyes were due to crying, not alcohol consumption (paras 2, 5-8).

Procedural History

• The metropolitan court convicted the Defendant of DWI (per se, first offense) following a bench trial.
• The district court affirmed the conviction following an on-record review.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that Officer Golson lacked probable cause for the arrest, asserting that the field sobriety tests and other evidence did not reasonably indicate impairment by alcohol. Additionally, the Defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the DWI per se conviction, challenging the assertion of actual physical control of the vehicle with intent to drive (paras 2, 6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Presented evidence of the Defendant's physical symptoms of impairment, performance on field sobriety tests, and the circumstances of the Defendant being found in a running vehicle in a bar parking lot to argue for the existence of probable cause for the arrest and sufficiency of evidence for the DWI per se conviction (paras 2, 5-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether Officer Golson had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's DWI per se conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (per se, first offense).

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring): The Court held that the evidence of the Defendant's physical symptoms of impairment, his performance on field sobriety tests, and the circumstances under which he was found in the vehicle provided probable cause for the arrest. Furthermore, the Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the Defendant being in actual physical control of the vehicle with the intent to drive, as indicated by the vehicle's running state, its location, and the time of day. The Court rejected the Defendant's arguments regarding the purpose of being in the vehicle and the cause of his red eyes, stating these were matters for the fact-finder to consider and within their prerogative to reject the Defendant's version of events (paras 2-9).