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

• An officer observed a vehicle, driven by the Defendant, speeding and engaging in reckless driving behaviors such as swerving and tailgating. Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer noted the Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol and watery eyes. The Defendant admitted to taking prescription medication earlier. Field sobriety tests were administered, showing signs of impairment, leading to the Defendant's arrest. Breath tests indicated alcohol concentrations of .09 and .08. The Defendant was charged with DWI, among other charges, but was only convicted of DWI after a bench trial (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was no probable cause for arrest, contending that the evidence of impairment was insufficient as the speeding was the only evidence against her. She claimed her performance on the field sobriety tests was nearly perfect and challenged the reliability of the one-leg stand test due to her weight. Additionally, she argued that the State failed to establish a proper foundation for the admission of her breathalyzer test results, questioning the calibration of the machine (paras 6, 10).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the officer had probable cause for the Defendant's arrest based on observed driving behavior, signs of intoxication, and field sobriety test results. Asserted that the breathalyzer test results were admissible, providing testimony that the machine was properly calibrated and functioning at the time of the test (paras 6-7, 10-12).

Legal Issues

• Whether probable cause supported the Defendant's arrest for DWI.
• Whether the State laid a proper foundation for the admission of the Defendant's breathalyzer test results.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the conviction for per se driving while intoxicated (DWI), finding that probable cause supported the Defendant's arrest and that the breathalyzer test results were properly admitted (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Megan P. Duffy, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Gerald E. Baca, held that the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant based on the observed driving behavior, the Defendant's admission of taking medication, the smell of alcohol, watery eyes, and the results of the field sobriety tests. The Court found that the totality of these circumstances provided an objectively reasonable belief of intoxication. Additionally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admission of the breath test results, noting the officer's testimony that the machine was certified and had passed a calibration check on the day of the test, which was sufficient to infer proper calibration (paras 6-12).