 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Decker v. State4/10/2002
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited for any proposition of law, nor as an example of the proper resolution of any issue.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 4557
Following a jury trial, John A. Decker was convicted of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated (DWI) and speeding. Decker appeals, arguing that District Court Judge Raymond M. Funk wrongly found that there was probable cause to arrest him for DWI. Because we find there was probable cause to arrest Decker for DWI, we affirm Judge Funk's decision.
Facts and proceedings
On June 6, 1999, North Pole police officers stopped Decker for speeding; he was driving approximately 70 miles per hour in a 40 miles per hour zone. Upon contacting Decker, the officers observed signs that he was potentially driving while intoxicated. The officers conducted a DWI investigation, which resulted in Decker's arrest for DWI. After his arrest, an Intoximeter test showed his breath alcohol content was .110 percent.
Before trial, Decker moved to suppress, asserting that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him for DWI. Following a suppression hearing, Judge Funk denied the motion, finding that the officers did have probable cause. Later, a jury convicted Decker of DWI. On appeal, Decker and the state rely on their trial memoranda.
Discussion
On appeal, Decker renews his claim that the North Pole police officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for DWI. The existence of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact. The district court, as the trier of fact, weighs the credibility of the evidence and the witnesses and resolves any conflicts and inconsistencies in that evidence. This court upholds the district court's factual findings absent clear error - that is, unless this court is left "with a definite and firm conviction on the entire record that a mistake has been made." This court reviews de novo the legal issue of whether those facts support probable cause.
By relying on his trial memorandum - which was filed before Judge Funk made his factual findings - Decker concedes that Judge Funk's factual findings were not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we review only the legal issue of whether those facts support probable cause.
Based on the evidence presented at the pretrial hearing, Judge Funk found that there "were reasonable indications that [Decker] had consumed alcohol and driven." He noted that it was "uncontested that [Decker] was driving that night" and that it was "uncontested that [Decker] was drinking that night based upon his admission of consumption of alcohol, . . . the moderate odor of alcohol, failing the [horizontal gaze nystagmus] test." He found that Decker was "going sixty-five to seventy miles an hour in a forty mile an hour zone," and that when he was contacted, the officers - in addition to noticing "a moderate odor of alcohol" - saw that he had bloodshot and watery eyes. Judge Funk also stated that while Decker did not "officially fail the walk and turn test or the one-leg stand test by the points," he had "exhibited problems in understanding and following instructions" related to those tests.
Finally, Judge Funk found that
while there may be other explanations for the speeding, [and for] the inability to follow instructions when given field sobriety tests, there were sufficient indications, in the court's mind, when takin
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|