The Court reverses  a District Court order  sustaining a license revocation and remands the proceeding to allow the driver to proceed with discovery of the source code and assert any appropriate challenges.  Duncan  v.  Commissioner, A08-2237  (Ct. App. Unpubl.  08/04/09)

DWI/DUI – Alcohol Restriction Violation

The Court affirms the cancellation of the petitioner’s driving privileges for the use of alcohol in violation of a restriction where an officer detected the odor of  alcohol  on petitioner’s breath, observed that his eyes were bloodshot and watery and testified that the petitioner tried to manipulate the PBT test.   Igo  v.  Commissioner, A08-2257  (Ct. App. Unpubl. 08/04/09)

DWI/DUI – P.B.T.  – Basis to Give

The defendant admitted he had failed to notice that the motorcycle directly in front of him had stopped and had a turn signal on.  There was one indicator of intoxication on one of the field sobriety tests, sufficient basis to offer a PBT even though the defendant satisfactorily performed a second field sobriety test.  State  v.  Krinke, A08-1670 (Ct. App. Unpubl.  08/11/09)

DWI/DUI  – Basis for PBT

An officer stopped a vehicle for speeding then observed the driver’s eyes were bloodshot, his breath smelled of alcohol, and the driver admitted to having 4 alcoholic beverages.  The officer had a reasonable basis to expand the scope of the traffic stop to administer a PBT test and conduct a DWI investigation.  Prigge  v.  Commissioner, A08-1891  (Ct. App. 08/25/09)

Affirming defendant’s felony DWI conviction based upon Lothenbach stipulation, the Court finds that the State need not prove all the underlying circumstances relating to a prior revocation , just the existance of the revocation itself. The Court rejects the defendant’s argument of insufficient notice of the prior revocation where the officer simply placed the notice with the defendant’s possessions rather than hand them to him personally.  State  v.  Omwega, A08-1738  (Ct. App. 07/21/09)

DWI/DUI  Refusal – Deficient Test

The Court finds sufficient reason to continue  defendant’s conviction of test refusal. The defendant took “short, quick puffs” rather than “long, hard breath” as instructed, in spite of the fact that the defendant told the officer he had asthma. The officer did not observe any breathing difficulty.  State  v.  Therrien, A08-0219 (Ct. App. Unpubl. 07/28/09)