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 for DWI. The conviction stemmed from a roadblock encounter, during which evidence of intoxication and breath-alcohol test results were obtained.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the roadblock was unconstitutional and contended that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the DWI conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the roadblock was constitutional and that the evidence of intoxication, along with the Defendant's breath-alcohol test results, were sufficient to support the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the roadblock was constitutional.
• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's DWI conviction.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's DWI conviction.

Reasons

• The panel of judges, consisting of Cynthia A. Fry, James J. Wechsler, and Jonathan B. Sutin, unanimously concurred in the decision to affirm the Defendant's DWI conviction. The court found the district court's analysis of the roadblock's constitutionality to be thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned, addressing all points raised by the Defendant and finding no need or basis for improvement (para 2). Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court noted that it does not reweigh evidence or attempt to draw alternative inferences. The indicia of intoxication and breath-alcohol test results were deemed ample support for the conviction, and the court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's assertion of error concerning the evidence's sufficiency (para 3).