By Jonathan Lewis
WOODLAND, CA – The judge here ruled against a defense motion in Yolo County Superior Court Thursday requesting the suppression of evidence, claiming driving under the influence field sobriety tests were not administered properly, making the arrest unlawful.
Deputy Public Defender Courtney Leavitt asked the court to suppress results from a blood alcohol test conducted after the arrest when the accused refused to perform one before being arrested.
The accused is charged with misdemeanor DUI driving and misdemeanor driving a vehicle with a blood alcohol content at or above 0.08 percent, along with enhancements for refusing to take the test. 
The arresting officer from the Woodland Police Department testified he stopped the accused in his black Honda Accord after witnessing him driving in the bike lane and straddling the fog line on the outside of his lane, all with one of his brake lights out.
However, PD Leavitt argued the accused’s tires touched the line but never went over it, arguing it is not necessarily a violation of the vehicle code.
PD Leavitt also refuted the officer’s claim the accused went into the bike lane more than 200 feet before turning, claiming that the officer’s estimate “may be off.”
PD Leavitt attempted to persuade Judge Stephen Mock that these alleged vehicle code violations do not suggest impairment. But she did not stop there.
After pulling over the accused, the officer said he smelled alcohol and saw watery and bloodshot eyes. The accused then allegedly admitted to drinking one alcoholic beverage, causing the officer to perform several (FST) tests for suspected drivers, including the walk-and-turn test, horizontal (HGN) and vertical (VGN) gaze nystagmus test, and the one-leg-stand test.
PD Leavitt claimed some of these tests were not conducted or evaluated correctly for clues of the accused being impaired, stating, “As far as the FSTs go, the eye test as far as HGN was not properly conducted, and those tests are standardized for a reason. I don’t think a reasonable officer would consider clues from an improperly conducted test.”
After conducting the walk-and-turn test, the officer said they saw the accused step to the left instead of walking heel to toe in a straight line. The officer also said they observed the accused using his arms to balance and failing to turn as instructed.
PD Leavitt did not heavily argue against this test, telling the court, “Your Honor saw the body cam there, you can see whether or not you thought the turn was proper and whether or not his eighth step was actually off the line or if his arms were above six inches and both of them were.”
While performing the 30-second one-leg-stand test the officer said they saw the accused swaying and using his arms to balance, which the officer testified is consistent with being under the influence of alcohol.
PD Leavitt did not challenge the accused’s swaying or arms during this test, stating “[the accused] balanced for 30 seconds, which is really indicative of a lack of impairment.
“Based off of the driving and the FSTs, I don’t think that there is probable cause to think that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of arrest,” PD Leavitt said.
Judge Mock ultimately denied the motion, ruling the officer did have a right to pull the accused over because he testified that the accused went into the bike lane more than 200 feet before the turn.
Additionally, Judge Mock said the non-functioning brake light and the right tires hitting the fog line “is sufficient to justify the stop.”
Judge Mock ruled, “I find based on the totality of the circumstances that there was a reasonable suspicion that the accused had been drinking and driving and therefore would deny the motion to suppress.” 
