Opinion
Case No. 20030530-CA.
Filed May 20, 2004. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Fourth District, American Fork Department, The Honorable Howard H. Maetani.
Noall T. Wootton, American Fork, for Appellant.
James Tucker Hansen, American Fork, for Appellee.
Before Judges Davis, Greenwood, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Defendant, Larry Singleton, appeals from a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). We affirm.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to his arrest because there was no probable cause to support his arrest. "This court reviews a trial court's legal determination of probable cause for correctness, affording some discretion to the trial court." Orem City v. Bovo, 2003 UT App 286, ¶ 7, 76 P.3d 1170.
"A police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for [DUI] when the officer has probable cause to believe the violation has occurred, although not in his presence, and if the officer has probable cause to believe that the violation was committed by the person." Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44(10) (Supp. 1999).
"[T]he determination of whether an officer can make a warrantless arrest should be made on an objective standard: whether from the facts known to the officer, and the inferences [that can] fairly . . . be drawn therefrom, a reasonable and prudent person in [the officer's] position would be justified in believing that the suspect had committed the offense."
Bovo, 2003 UT App 286 at ¶ 14 (second, third, and fourth alterations in original) (quotations and citations omitted).
Applying this standard to the instant case, it is clear that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant for DUI. It is undisputed that Defendant was operating a vehicle immediately prior to his encounter with the arresting officer. It is also undisputed that when the arresting officer encountered Defendant, he had "glassy, bloodshot eyes" and "was slightly swaying" as he talked. Finally, it is undisputed that when the officer attempted to perform field sobriety tests in Defendant's house, Defendant became belligerent and refused to cooperate. Therefore, although Defendant was initially arrested for obstruction of justice rather than DUI, his arrest was nonetheless lawful because there was probable cause to arrest him for DUI.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: James Z. Davis, Judge, William A. Thorne Jr., Judge.