State v. Phillips

                                 598

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
    Argued and submitted December 20, 2022, affirmed April 26, 2023


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
               CHASE THOMAS PHILLIPS,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
               Deschutes County Circuit Court
                    20CR45218; A176151


  Wells B. Ashby, Judge.
   Peter G. Klym, Deputy Public Defender, argued the
cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet,
Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
   Robert A. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
  ORTEGA, P. J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2023)              599

         ORTEGA, P. J.
         Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS
813.010. In his sole assignment of error, he contends that the
trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence
obtained during a traffic stop because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate him for DUII. We
affirm.
        Defendant contends that the dashboard camera
video footage submitted as an exhibit at the suppression
hearing “shows that defendant’s driving did not provide
observable, specific and articulable facts” that he was committing or about to commit DUII. Rather, in defendant’s
view, the video, which provides an “irrefutable record” of
what occurred, “shows defendant driving appropriately.”
         Having reviewed the video, the officer’s testimony,
and the trial court’s ruling, we disagree. “We previously
have concluded—on several occasions—that a police officer’s
observation of a vehicle weaving in its own lane provides a
sufficient basis to reasonably believe that the driver of the
vehicle is operating the vehicle under the influence and to
stop the vehicle for further investigation.” State v. Shupe,

, 

, rev den, 

 (2016),
overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Serbin, 

, 

 (2023) (collecting cases). In light of
that case law, we are persuaded that defendant’s driving as
reflected in the video, together with the officer’s observations,
knowledge, and experience that such driving amid other
relevant circumstances may indicate impairment, made it
reasonable for the officer to believe that defendant might
be driving under the influence of intoxicants. Accordingly,
the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to
suppress.
         Affirmed.