Title: Lefebvre v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JENNIFER L. LEFEBVRE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  No. 623, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§  in and for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  Cr. I.D. No. 0903001060 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
    Submitted:  February 23, 2011 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:  April 26, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and 
RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc. 
 
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED. 
 
 
Eric G. Mooney, Esquire (argued) and James D. Nutter, Esquire, 
Mooney & Nutter, P.A., Georgetown, Delaware, for appellant. 
 
 
Paul R. Wallace, Esquire (argued) and Sean P. Lugg, Esquire, Deputy 
Attorneys General, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOLLAND, Justice, for the majority: 
2 
 
The defendant-appellant, Jennifer Lefebvre (“Lefebvre”), appeals 
from a Superior Court judgment of conviction for Driving Under the 
Influence of Alcohol.1  Lefebvre’s conviction arises from an arrest made by 
Delaware State Police officers on February 12, 2009.2 Lefebvre filed a 
pretrial motion to suppress the results of an intoxilyzer test administered to 
determine her breath alcohol concentration (“BAC”).  In support of her 
motion to suppress, Lefebvre argued, inter alia, that there was no probable 
cause to arrest her for a DUI offense.3 
 
The Superior Court denied the motion to suppress in a bench ruling.  
In order to preserve her appellate rights, Lefebvre consented to a stipulated 
trial.  At trial, the parties agreed to admit the evidence produced during the 
suppression hearing and that Lefebvre was operating a motor vehicle in 
Sussex County on the date and time alleged in the indictment.  Lefebvre’s 
BAC test result was also admitted as a State’s exhibit.   
 
Based on the stipulated evidence, the trial judge found Lefebvre guilty 
of the charge of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in violation of title 
                                          
 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4177(d)(3).   
2 Lefebvre was cited at the same time with violations of title 21, section 4123 (following 
a motor vehicle too closely) and title 21, section 2118 (failure to have insurance 
identification in possession).  The State entered a nolle prosequi as to these charges and 
they are not at issue in the present appeal. 
3 Lefebvre also argued she was stopped by an off-duty police officer who lacked 
authority to make the arrest, a contention which, based on the evidence presented at the 
suppression hearing, is not being advanced by her in this appeal.   
3 
 
21, section 4177 of the Delaware Code.  The trial judge immediately 
sentenced Lefebvre to serve two years of incarceration at Level 5, to be 
suspended after Lefebvre served the ninety-day mandatory jail term required 
for a third offense.  Lefebvre’s jail sentence was followed by eighteen 
months of Level 3 probation.   
 
The sole issue raised by Lefebvre in this appeal is that the Superior 
Court erroneously denied her motion to suppress.  We have concluded that 
argument is without merit.  Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court 
must be affirmed. 
Facts4 
 
The State presented testimony at the hearing on the motion to 
suppress from the two officers, Delaware State Police Sergeant Darren Short 
(“Sergeant Short”) and Trooper Brian Page (“Trooper Page”), both who 
participated in Lefebvre’s arrest.  Sergeant Short testified that he had been 
employed by the State Police for sixteen years and is currently in charge of 
the Kent County Drug Task Force stationed out of Troop 3 in Camden, 
Delaware.  Sergeant Short received training in DUI enforcement whilst in 
the police academy and is certified in DUI detection and field sobriety 
testing.  Sergeant Short estimated he has made more than 300 DUI arrests.   
                                          
 
4 The recitation of facts in this opinion is taken primarily from the opening brief that 
Lefebvre filed in this appeal. 
4 
 
 
On February 12, 2009, Sergeant Short was working as part of a 
federal investigation in Sussex County.  At approximately 4:41 p.m., 
Sergeant Short was operating an “unconventional” police SUV5 that was 
stopped at a red light on Route 1 southbound in the area of Sea Air Mobile 
Home Park near Rehoboth Beach.  In the lane next to Sergeant Short, a 
black Mitsubishi Lancer was stopped.  Sergeant Short heard yelling from the 
Mitsubishi and observed the occupants shouting and bouncing around inside.  
Sergeant Short stated it looked like a “girls gone wild” video.   
 
When the light turned green, the Mitsubishi accelerated from the light 
and “came up directly behind” a small grey car.  According to Sergeant 
Short, the driver of the Mitsubishi was following the grey car too close, with 
only a foot between the vehicles, such that the grey car could not slow down 
without being hit from behind.  Sergeant Short could not tell if the 
Mitsubishi was speeding.  According to Sergeant Short, the Mitsubishi did 
not swerve within its lane.  The Mitsubishi tailgated the grey car for 
approximately one-half mile.  The grey car then made an abrupt lane change 
to apparently “get away from” the Mitsubishi.   
                                          
 
5 Lefebvre described Sergeant Short’s vehicle as a 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche with tinted 
windows which would not commonly be recognized as a police car by members of the 
general public.   
5 
 
After observing these actions, Sergeant Short decided to conduct a 
traffic stop of the Mitsubishi.  Sergeant Short followed the Mitsubishi as it 
made a left turn across northbound Route 1 without signaling, and turned 
into the parking lot of a restaurant.  Sergeant Short blocked-in the Mitsubishi 
using his vehicle and activated his vehicle’s emergency equipment.   
Sergeant Short then approached the driver of the Mitsubishi, 
Lefebvre, and identified himself.  Sergeant Short testified that he noticed a 
strong odor of an alcoholic beverage and that Lefebvre’s speech was slurred.  
Lefebvre appeared visibly flustered and asked why she had been stopped.  
Lefebvre produced her license and registration as requested, although she 
reportedly had to be asked for her license more than one time.  Sergeant 
Short could not observe Lefebvre’s eyes because she was wearing 
sunglasses.   
After speaking with Lefebvre, Sergeant Short returned to his police 
car and requested that a patrol unit respond to conduct field sobriety tests.  
Trooper Page was in his police car when he heard the dispatch request a 
patrol unit to respond to Sergeant Short’s location to conduct field tests.  
Trooper Page responded and met with Sergeant Short, who briefed Trooper 
Page about his observations and belief that Lefebvre was under the 
6 
 
influence.  Sergeant Short advised Trooper Page that he had not yet 
conducted any field tests.  
 
Trooper Page had been a Delaware State Police officer for two years. 
Before joining the State Police, Trooper Page served in the Air Force for 
thirteen years.   Trooper Page received training in DUI enforcement in the 
police academy and was certified in DUI detection and field sobriety testing.  
Before February 12, 2009, Trooper Page estimated he had made 
approximately twenty arrests for DUI offenses.  
 
After speaking with Sergeant Short, Trooper Page approached the 
Mitsubishi and spoke to Lefebvre.  Trooper Page testified that he noticed a 
strong odor of an alcoholic beverage and that Lefebvre’s face was flushed.  
His entire interaction with Lefebvre was recorded on his patrol vehicle’s 
dashboard camera, the video of which was admitted into evidence and 
played at the suppression hearing.  
 
Trooper Page asked Lefebvre when she last had a drink. She 
responded an “hour and a half ago.”  No alcoholic beverages were visible in 
her vehicle.  Lefebvre asked several times why she had been stopped.  
Trooper Page characterized Lefebvre as being argumentative, but not 
confused.  Although the video reflects that Lefebvre’s speech was 
understandable, Trooper Page testified that Lefebvre’s speech was slurred.  
7 
 
When questioned about this discrepancy, Trooper Page did not agree that the 
video accurately depicted Lefebvre’s speech.   
 
Although Trooper Page believed Lefebvre was impaired before he 
conducted any field tests, he nonetheless asked Lefebvre to perform field 
sobriety tests which Trooper Page testified, are designed to “show that [a] 
person is under the influence of alcohol by having them perform multiple 
tasks.”  Trooper Page first administered two pre-exit tests, the alphabet and 
counting tests, while Lefebvre remained seated in her car.  She performed 
both tests correctly.6 
 
 Trooper Page then had Lefebvre exit her car for additional testing.  
Trooper Page testified that he is trained to observe DUI suspects as they exit 
their car for signs of impairment, such as staggering or using the car for 
balance.  Trooper Page characterized Lefebvre’s exit as normal. 
 
Once Lefebvre was outside of her car, Trooper Page administered the 
horizontal gaze nystagmus test (“HGN”).  Trooper Page testified about the 
general principles underlying the test, his training to administer the test and 
the six clues for which he checks.  Although Trooper Page testified that 
                                          
 
6 With respect to the alphabet test, Trooper Page instructed Lefebvre to recite the 
alphabet beginning with the letter E and ending with the letter P.  The purpose of having 
a person start and end with a letter in the middle of the alphabet is to make the test harder 
by dividing the person’s attention and giving them multiple tasks to think about.  
Lefebvre performed this test correctly.  Trooper Page then instructed Lefebvre to count 
backwards beginning with the number 98 and ending with the number 87.  Lefebvre 
performed this second divided attention test correctly.   
8 
 
Lefebvre exhibited all six clues, the Trooper did not conduct the test in 
accordance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(“NHTSA”) protocol.  Therefore, the Superior Court found that the results 
were compromised and did not consider them in determining whether 
probable cause existed. 
 
After the HGN test, Trooper Page had Lefebvre perform a finger 
dexterity test.  Trooper Page instructed Lefebvre to touch the tip of her 
thumb with the tip of each finger, counting, one, two, three, four, and then 
going back counting, four, three, two, one.  This test requires the subject 
perform a total of sixteen actions (counting aloud eight times and touching 
the fingers eight times).  Lefebvre was instructed to do this test twice with 
each hand.  Trooper Page acknowledged that Lefebvre did well on the test. 
 
Trooper Page next administered the walk-and-turn test.  Lefebvre was 
instructed to stand with her right foot in front of her left.  The video shows 
that Lefebvre held this position without issue for nearly a minute while 
Trooper Page explained the test.  Lefebvre was instructed to walk nine steps 
forward heel-to-toe, and then pivot and take nine steps back heel-to-toe.  
Trooper Page concluded that Lefebvre passed this test.   
 
Trooper Page then administered the one-leg stand test.  Lefebvre was 
instructed to stand with her hands at her side, raise either foot six inches off 
9 
 
the ground and then count to thirty by 1,000  (1001, 1002, 1003, etc.) until 
told to stop.  Before the test, Lefebvre commented to Trooper Page that “I’m 
not that good at this sober.”  The videotape of Lefebvre’s test shows that 
more than thirty seconds elapsed before Lefebvre began to sway.  The 
Superior Court found as fact that Lefebvre did not begin to lose balance until 
after thirty seconds had elapsed.  Thus, Lefebvre passed this test.   
 
Finally, Trooper Page administered a portable breath test (“PBT”) to 
Lefebvre.  Although Trooper Page considered Lefebvre to have failed this 
test, Trooper Page did not follow proper protocol for administering the test 
and did not know if the machine had ever been calibrated.  Consequently, 
the Superior Court held that the PBT results were compromised and did not 
consider the results in determining whether probable cause had been 
established.   
 
After finishing the field testing, Trooper Page allowed Lefebvre to 
walk back to her car.  He then went over to Sergeant Short, showed him the 
failed PBT results and said “she did well on her tests though.”  Sergeant 
Short responded by saying:  “she’s drunk, I could tell when I got up there.”  
Trooper Page then returned to Lefebvre and placed her under arrest for DUI. 
 
 
10 
 
Probable Cause Before Chemical Test 
 
A person who operates a motor vehicle on a Delaware roadway is 
deemed by statute “to have given consent to chemical tests, including a test 
of the breath to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs.”7  Since that 
testing constitutes a search,8 constitutional protections require a police 
officer to have probable cause to believe a person was driving while under 
the influence of alcohol or drugs before requiring the person submit to 
chemical testing.9  “While under the influence” is defined in title 21, section 
4177(c)(5) to mean that “the person is, because of alcohol or drugs or a 
combination of both, less able than the person would ordinarily have been, 
either mentally or physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical 
control, or due care in the driving of a vehicle.”10 
 
This Court has described probable cause as “an elusive concept which 
. . . lies somewhere between suspicion and sufficient evidence to convict.”11  
Probable cause to arrest for a DUI offense exists when an officer possesses 
“information which would warrant a reasonable man in believing that [such] 
                                          
 
7 Bease v. State, 884 A.2d 495, 497-98 (Del. 2005) (citing Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 
2740(a)). 
8 Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 (1966). 
9 Bease v. State, 884 A.2d at 498. 
10 Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4177(c)(5). 
11 State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d 926, 929 (Del. 1993). 
11 
 
a crime ha[s] been committed.”12  To meet this standard, police must 
“present facts which suggest, when those facts are viewed under the totality 
of the circumstances, that there is a fair probability” that the defendant has 
committed a DUI offense.13  That hypothetically innocent explanations may 
exist for facts learned during an investigation does not preclude a finding of 
probable cause.14  What is required is that the arresting police officer possess 
a “quantum of trustworthy factual information” sufficient to warrant a man 
of reasonable caution in believing a DUI offense has been committed.15   
 
Whether probable cause exists to arrest a driver for a DUI offense is 
generally decided by the arresting officer’s observations, which frequently 
include the quality of the driver’s performance on field sobriety tests.  
Although no precise formula exists, the boundaries of what constitutes 
probable cause for a DUI offense have been defined and refined in a variety 
of factual contexts.  For example, a traffic violation combined with an odor 
of alcohol, standing alone, do not constitute probable cause to arrest the 
driver for a DUI offense.16  Conversely, as this Court held in Bease, evidence 
of a traffic violation, odor of alcohol, rapid speech, admission to drinking, 
                                          
 
12 Clendaniel v. Voshell, 562 A.2d 1167, 1170 (Del. 1989) (citation omitted).   
13 State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930. 
14 Id.  
15 Id. at 931. 
16Esham v. Voshell, 1987 WL 8277 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 1987). 
12 
 
bloodshot and glassy eyes and a failed alphabet test constituted probable 
cause to arrest the driver for a DUI offense.17 
 
In Perrera v. State, the driver passed two field tests, finger-to-nose 
and one-leg stand, but had committed a traffic violation, smelled of alcohol, 
had bloodshot glassy eyes, failed the alphabet and counting tests, failed two 
PBT tests and failed the HGN test.18  We held in Perrera that probable cause 
to arrest existed notwithstanding the two passed field tests.19  This Court 
explained that “[m]ixed results in field sobriety tests do not extinguish 
probable cause if other sufficient facts are present.”20 
 
In this case, Lefebvre concedes that there was probable cause to arrest 
her for a DUI offense before any field test was administered.  That 
concession appears on page 19 of Lefebvre’s Opening Brief in this appeal, 
which states:  
The evidence supporting probable cause in the present appeal, 
in the light most favorable to the State, can be summarized as 
follows:  Lefebvre committed a traffic offense, exhibited a 
strong odor of alcohol, had a flushed face and bloodshot, glassy 
eyes, admitted drinking an hour and a half before the stop, was 
somewhat flustered and argumentative with the officer, and 
stated prior to the one-leg stand “I’m not that good at this 
sober.”  Were this the only evidence in the case, or if Lefebvre 
had refused to perform field tests, defendant concedes that 
                                          
 
17 Bease v. State, 884 A.2d at 499-500. 
18 Perrera v. State, 2004 WL 1535815 (Del. June 25, 2004). 
19 Id. at *1. 
20 Id.  
13 
 
probable cause would have existed.  Without anything more, 
the present case would be almost identical to Bease.  
 
We agree with Lefebvre’s acknowledgment that, in accordance with our 
holding in Bease, there was probable cause to arrest her for a DUI offense 
prior to the administration of any field sobriety tests. 
 
Nevertheless, Lefebvre argues that the observations made by Sergeant 
Short and Trooper Page and any statements by Lefebvre must be considered 
together with the “overwhelming evidence of non-impairment” that was 
subsequently generated by her performance on the field tests.  Specifically, 
Lefebvre notes that her speech was understandable and that she passed the 
alphabet test, passed the counting test, exited her car without issue, passed 
the finger-dexterity test, passed the walk-and-turn test and passed the one-
leg stand test.  Lefebvre emphasizes that this is not a case where the field 
tests results were “mixed” because she passed every field test properly 
administered by Trooper Page to determine whether she was impaired.   
 
The Superior Court characterized Lefebvre’s successful performance 
on the field sobriety tests as hypothetically “innocent explanations.”21  The 
State acknowledges that the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand are field 
sobriety tests which have been standardized and validated through extensive 
                                          
 
21 State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930.  We do not agree with that characterization.  
Successful performances on field sobriety tests are not the type of conduct that we 
described as innocent explanations in Maxwell.   
14 
 
research studies sponsored by NHTSA.22  Both tests employ the concept of 
divided attention.  Lefebvre argues that passing two NHTSA certified field 
tests is not an “innocent explanation” but was proof of her non-impairment.  
In summarizing her argument, Lefebvre states: 
If successfully performing two NHTSA certified field tests 
constitutes nothing more than hypothetically “innocent 
explanations”, then in effect the NHTSA tests are only relevant 
in a probable cause analysis when a person fails them.  Such an 
interpretation of the tests is not supported by Delaware law or 
the scientific principles and validation studies by which the 
tests were developed. 
 
Lefebvre argues that her having passed every properly administered 
field sobriety test (other than the HGN and PBT, which the Superior Court 
determined were not properly administered) constitutes “overwhelming 
evidence” that she was not impaired by alcohol.  Lefebvre urges this Court 
to hold that her “success” on the field sobriety tests negated the facts that she 
concedes otherwise established probable cause to arrest her for DUI before 
the field tests were administered.  To hold otherwise, she argues, would 
ignore the “totality of the circumstances” element of the probable cause 
                                          
 
22 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DWI Detection and Standardized 
Field Sobriety Testing, Instructor’s Manual, Session VIII, 2004 Edition, 2004 WL 
5604664 (hereinafter “Session VIII”) at § A.2. 
15 
 
standard, and render field sobriety testing relevant in a probable cause 
analysis only when a person fails the tests.23 
To reiterate, Lefebvre concedes that based on the facts and 
circumstances, Trooper Page had probable cause to arrest her for a DUI 
offense before the field tests began.  According to Lefebvre, however, 
probable cause, once established, may be negated by “overwhelming 
evidence of non-impairment produced through” non-failing performance on 
standardized field sobriety tests. Lefebvre’s argument misconstrues the 
evidentiary weight of non-failing results on standardized field sobriety tests, 
insofar as those results pertain to the “totality of the circumstances” legal 
standard for determining probable cause to arrest for a DUI offense. 
Contrary to Lefebvre’s contention, field sobriety testing is relevant to 
a probable cause analysis not only where a person fails them, but also where 
a person passes them and all other facts and circumstances known to the 
police officer before the field tests are insufficient in themselves to establish 
probable cause.  For example, the commission of a traffic offense combined 
with an odor of alcohol, standing alone, do not constitute probable cause to 
                                          
 
23 Lefebvre’s argument focuses on the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests, which are 
two of three tests comprising the Standardized Field Sobriety Test battery (“SFST”) developed and 
validated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”).  The third SFST test is the 
HGN.  See http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/SFST/appendix_a.htm.    
16 
 
arrest for a DUI offense.24  Nevertheless, those two facts may give rise to a 
reasonable suspicion of DUI and justify a request that the driver perform 
some field sobriety tests.  The driver’s performance on those tests may give 
rise to facts that either elevate what was only a suspicion into probable 
cause, or dispel the suspicion and result in no DUI arrest. 
Lefebvre’s case is distinguishable because she concedes that there was 
not merely a suspicion before the field tests began, but actual probable cause 
to arrest her for a DUI offense.  There are many factual scenarios where 
probable cause to arrest for a DUI offense is so clear that the driver is not 
asked to perform any field tests.  But, even where (as here) a police officer 
has probable cause to arrest before any field testing, the officer is not 
precluded from developing additional evidence through field testing.  When 
probable cause pre-existed, and the field tests and the performance results 
are either favorable to the driver or mixed, that evidence is available for a 
reasonable doubt argument to the trier of fact at trial, if a BAC test is 
requested and refused.   
Field tests results that are either favorable to the driver or mixed, do 
not, however, negate the probable cause to arrest that existed before the field 
tests began.  In other words, the performance results of field sobriety tests 
                                          
 
24 Esham v. Voshell, 1987 WL 8277 at *2. 
17 
 
may either eliminate suspicion or elevate suspicion into probable cause but 
they are of insufficient evidentiary weight to eliminate probable cause that 
had already been established by the totality of the circumstances before the 
performance of the field sobriety tests.  The record reflects the Superior 
Court applied a proper totality of the circumstances analysis in deciding to 
deny Lefebvre’s motion to suppress. 
Response to the Dissent 
 
Lefebvre concedes that there was probable cause to arrest her for DUI 
before any field sobriety test was administered.  The dissent asserts that 
“‘concession’ by Lefebvre is not a fact, and that it should have no bearing on 
the probable cause determination.”  To the extent that Lefebvre’s concession 
is simply an acknowledgement that is “in accordance with our holding in 
Bease,” we agree.  The record facts in this case support a finding of probable 
cause, prior to the administration of any field test, that is controlled by our 
holding in Bease and without any regard to Lefebvre’s unsurprising 
concession.  The dissent does not take issue with either the record facts or 
the holding in Bease. 
 
The dissent asserts that after Lefebvre passed the properly 
administered field sobriety tests, Trooper Page appealed to Sergeant Short 
for guidance and “without much elaboration, Short replied she’s drunk .  . .,” 
18 
 
implying that Page should arrest Lefebvre.  Sergeant Short’s statements must 
be considered in the context of the fact that Lefebvre failed a portable breath 
test (PBT).  The dissent asserts that the failed portable breath test results 
should not be relied upon because it was excluded from evidence due to its 
improper administration.  We do not rely upon it now for the truth of the 
excluded results but, rather, to put Sergeant Short’s remarks into a complete 
context which is accurately related in the statement of facts in Lefebvre’s 
opening brief in this appeal. 
 
After finishing the field testing, Page allowed Lefebvre to 
walk back to her vehicle.  He then walked over to Short, 
showed him the [failed] PBT and said “she did well on her tests 
though.”  Short responded by saying:  “she’s drunk, I could tell 
when I got up there.”  Page then walked over to Lefebvre and 
placed her under arrest for DUI. 
 
 
The difference between the majority and the dissent on what the 
dissent describes as “segmenting” turns on the question of whether field 
sobriety tests that are either favorable to the driver or mixed, negate the 
probable cause to arrest that existed before the field tests began.  The 
majority holds that they do not and the dissent argues that they can.  In 
support of its position, the dissent notes that Lefebvre “successfully passed 
the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand tests while wearing high-heels.”  The 
dissent asserts that successful performance on field sobriety tests is of such 
great evidentiary weight that it can defeat the probable cause that preceded 
19 
 
the administration of those tests.  That assertion is not supported by 
NHTSA’s own materials.  NHTSA research has demonstrated that many 
impaired suspects can maintain balance while performing the one-leg stand 
for 20-25 seconds and a few can do so for the full 30 seconds it takes to 
complete the test.25  As part of NHTSA’s validation studies of the 
standardized field tests, the walk-and-turn test, by itself, was found to be 
68% accurate.26  Similarly, the one-leg stand test, by itself, was found to be 
65% accurate.27  In other words, each of those tests had a margin of error 
that was either 32% or 35%.   
The difference between the majority’s and the dissent’s proposed 
probable cause analysis is most clearly illustrated by the facts of this case.  
The majority holds that there was probable cause to arrest Lefebvre for a 
DUI offense before the field tests were conducted and that the pre-existing 
probable cause was not extinguished by her successful completion of those 
tests.  Therefore (as the majority holds), the results of a correctly 
administered intoxilyzer test were properly admitted into evidence to prove 
that Lefebvre’s blood alcohol concentration was .185.28  The dissent 
                                          
 
25 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DWI Detection and Standardized 
Field Sobriety Testing, Instructor’s Manual, Session VII, 2004 WL 5604663 at § E.7. 
26 Session VIII at § A.5. 
27 Session VIII at § A.5. 
28 The intoxilyzer test was properly administered at the police station separate and apart 
from the improperly administered portable breath test that was conducted at the scene.  
20 
 
concludes that following Lefebvre’s successful performance on the field 
tests, there was no probable cause to arrest Lefebvre for a DUI offense.  We 
cannot agree. This case demonstrates – consistent with NHTSA’s own 
findings – that an individual may pass field tests and still be under the 
influence of alcohol.  Lefebvre’s blood alcohol concentration was more than 
two times greater than the legal limit (.08).  Where probable cause exists 
independently of field tests which a person under the influence may pass, 
that probable cause is not extinguished by the successful performance of the 
tests. 
Conclusion 
 
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. 
 
STEELE, Chief Justice, and Berger, Justice, dissenting: 
The majority holds that there was probable cause to believe that 
Lefebvre was driving under the influence.  It does so by relying on 
Lefebvre’s concession, and by dividing the “totality of the circumstances” 
test into parts.  But the “concession” is not a fact, and it should have no 
bearing 
on 
the 
probable 
cause 
determination. 
 
Moreover, 
by 
compartmentalizing the probable cause analysis, the majority uses a test that 
21 
 
does not properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.”  We disagree 
with the majority’s analysis of these issues, and we respectfully dissent. 
 
The Court must have a principled basis for determining whether, as 
the majority puts it, an officer—presumably the officer who offers the breath 
test to the defendant—“possesses information which would warrant a 
reasonable man in believing that [such] a crime has been committed.”29  That 
information, of course, is designed to determine whether a person is “less 
able than the person would ordinarily have been, either mentally or 
physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due 
care in the driving of a vehicle.”30  As the majority points out, no one can be 
required to submit to chemical breath testing unless a police officer has 
probable cause to believe the person “was driving while under the influence” 
as defined above.   
 
The “totality of the circumstances” test, as the majority acknowledges, 
is the proper test to decide whether probable cause exists.31  That said, the 
test must be applied in a manner that considers all the information available 
and then fairly assesses that information.  We agree with the majority on the 
                                          
 
29 Clendaniel v. Voshell, 562 A.2d 1167, 1170 (Del. 1989). 
30 21 Del. C. § 4177(c) (5). 
31 See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230–31 (1983); State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d 926, 
928 (Del. 1993). 
 
22 
 
fundamental approach, but we disagree with the majority’s novel application 
of the test.  The majority never considers all the admissible evidence in toto. 
Instead, it segments probable cause into temporal compartments based on 
the series of events that culminated in Lefebvre’s arrest.  We believe this 
segmented approach is a notable, and unwarranted, departure from our 
precedent.32  
 
The majority suggests that passed field sobriety tests can be ignored 
under the “totality” test if, before testing, the police might have had 
sufficient alternative evidence to constitute probable cause.  In doing so, the 
majority discounts the fact that experts specifically designed the field tests to 
provide objective evidence of one’s ability to multitask,33 which is a reliable 
indicator of impairment, or lack thereof.  But the majority would balk at the 
suggestion that those same field tests should be ignored in cases where, 
                                          
 
32 Indeed, in our survey of this Court’s previous “totality of the circumstances” cases, it 
appears to us that this segmentation approach to “totality of the circumstances” is new.  
See, e.g., Bease v. State, 884 A.2d 495, 497, 499–500 (Del. 2005) (considering all 
evidence available to the police at the time of probable cause determination, including (1) 
Bease’s manner of speech, (2) smell of alcohol, (3) admission of consumption, and (4) 
bloodshot and glassy eyes, along with (4) his commission of a traffic offense, and (5) his 
failure of the alphabet test—the only NHTSA test the police administered properly); 
Perrera v. State, 852 A.2d 908, 2004 WL 1535815, at *1 (Del. June 25, 2004) (ORDER) 
(considering all evidence available to the police, including five failed field tests and two 
passed field tests, and holding that probable cause existed under the totality of the 
circumstances test). 
33 The majority aptly refers to this as the “concept of divided attention.” 
 
23 
 
lacking sufficient alternative evidence, the police rely on any adverse test 
results to establish probable cause.   
We believe that the “totality” test, to be both fair and principled, must 
account for all conduct before the chemical breath test, along with 
hypothetically innocent explanations for those actions (e.g., youths bounce 
around to loud music in cars, drivers follow too closely on occasion, and 
drivers fail to use turn signals for reasons completely unrelated to 
impairment by alcohol), in an evenhanded probable cause analysis.  The 
majority correctly posits that the existence of “hypothetically innocent 
explanations” for facts does not preclude a finding of probable cause.34  
Indeed, it is established Delaware law that “hypothetically innocent 
explanations” cannot “discount[] the probative value of [] fact[s] revealed by 
the police investigation.”35  That does not mean, however, that the police or 
the Court may completely ignore “hypothetically innocent explanations,” 
and give weight only to inculpatory explanations for the same facts.  Under a 
true “totality” analysis, the police and the Court must consider all 
circumstances, and may not simply categorize any conduct that might be 
alcohol-induced as evidence of impairment. 
                                          
 
34 Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930. 
35 Id. 
 
24 
 
First, while both officers testified they smelled the “odor of alcohol,” 
Delaware law does not forbid driving with an “odor of alcohol” on one’s 
breath.  Besides, those familiar with experts’ views know that ethanol itself 
is odorless and that the nature of the beverage consumed—not the quantity 
of alcohol consumed—affects the strength of the beverage’s odor.36  The 
quantity of alcohol consumed, not the beverage ingredient that supplies the 
odor, affects impairment.  Ergo, the need for multitasking field tests in order 
to ascertain whether there is reason to believe a suspect may be impaired. 
 
In this case, we have the additional anomaly of an arresting officer—
Trooper Page—who, having been called to the scene of a stopped vehicle by 
Sergeant Short, never saw Lefebvre drive.  Even the two officers’ testimony 
conflicted, in part, over Lefebvre’s demeanor, and the trial judge found that 
the video tape contradicted them both on the de rigueur “slurred speech” 
testimony.  Short, a senior officer who observed the defendant drive for two 
minutes or less, called for Page to come to the scene in order to administer 
“field tests.”  Experts designed those tests specifically to augment subjective 
observations by providing results reflecting a driver’s objective “multi-
                                          
 
36 See, e.g., Dr. David J. Hanson, Ph.D., DWI/DUI Facts and Fiction: Urban Myths, 
ALCOHOL 
PROBLEMS 
AND 
SOLUTIONS 
(April 
3, 
2011, 
4:00 
PM), 
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1107196613.html. 
25 
 
tasking” ability in order to determine whether the driver drove while 
impaired. 
 
Lefebvre passed all properly administered NHTSA certified tests.  
That is, and should be recognized as, evidence of lack of impairment.37  That 
this conclusion is so readily apparent becomes clear when the perplexed 
Page appealed to Short, who originally ordered him to conduct the definitive 
multitasking field tests, for guidance because the defendant actually showed 
no impairment when she passed the expertly designed tests.  Without much 
elaboration, Short replied, “she’s drunk . . . ,” and implied that Page should 
arrest Lefebvre.38  Short ordered the tests expecting Lefebvre to fail.  When 
she did not, he disregarded them.   
Although the trial judge and the majority give no credence to 
hypothetically innocent explanations for bouncing to music, momentarily 
tailgating, and failing to use a turn signal, they brush aside the unexpected 
passing of an entire series of multitasking field tests specially designed to 
objectively reflect impairment as if they were of no consequence.  If one 
accounts for all appropriate hypothetically innocent explanations, and 
                                          
 
37Indeed, as the majority explains, Lefebvre passed every objective test that Page properly 
administered.  This includes the alphabet, counting, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, and 
finger dexterity tests.  In fact, it merits notation that Lefebvre successfully passed the 
walk-and-turn and one-leg stand tests while wearing high heels. 
38 The majority explains this interaction between the two officers by saying that Lefebvre 
failed the breath test.  But a court cannot consider inadmissible evidence.  The breath test 
was administered improperly.  As a result, the test results are meaningless. 
26 
 
considers only the admissible evidence, then in our view, there was little 
basis to believe Lefebvre drove while impaired before being given the 
chemical breath test and, more practically, no probability that Short himself 
believed so when he ordered Page to give the field tests. 
 
The majority bolsters its conclusion by relying on the assertion in 
Lefebvre’s brief that probable cause existed before the administration of 
field tests.  But, in fact, she premised that “concession” expressly on viewing 
all the evidence up to that point “in the light most favorable to the State.”  
Neither the oral argument nor the record suggests any law that requires the 
evidence to be considered in the light most favorable to the State at any 
stage of probable cause fact finding.  Instead, for probable cause to exist, as 
the majority quotes our precedent, police must “present facts which suggest, 
when those facts are viewed under the totality of the circumstances, that 
there is a fair probability that the defendant committed a DUI offense.”39 
Without record support, the majority asserts that “there are many 
factual scenarios where probable cause to arrest for a DUI offense is so clear 
that the driver is not asked to perform any field tests.”  Clearly, this case is 
not one of them.40  Nevertheless, the majority publishes a holding that will 
                                          
 
39 Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930. 
40 Even assuming the majority assertion is correct, we would not hold that field testing is 
a necessary condition to a finding of probable cause.  We would hold only that the Court 
27 
 
stand for the proposition that field tests, designed and given to prove 
impairment, when passed, are irrelevant to probable cause determinations as 
long as the police already have other evidence which, when considered in 
isolation, may constitute probable cause.  On the other hand, the State 
presumably may continue to use unfavorable field test results in building its 
case for probable cause.  We find this “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” 
framework inappropriate under existing law. 
We cannot find any precedent to support the majority’s segmented 
approach to the “totality of the circumstances” test, and the majority cites 
none.41  In nearly all of the cases the majority cites, this Court considered 
field test results.42  None of the cases, however, featured facts quite like 
those in the immediate case, where the defendant passed all properly 
administered tests.  In fact, of all the “totality” cases the majority cites, only 
one—Perrera— ever considered the mitigating effect of passed field tests.  
                                                                                                                             
 
must consider the favorable results of field testing, like that performed in this case, along 
with all other available evidence, as part of its “totality of the circumstances” analysis.  
Controlling precedent very clearly considers failed field test as part of its “totality of the 
circumstances” analysis, see supra note 4, and we should consider passed field test 
similarly.   
41 See supra note 4.  See also Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930 (considering all evidence 
available to the police, along with the police “observations, their training, their 
experience, their investigation, and rational inferences drawn therefrom”) (emphasis 
added); Clendaniel v. Voshell, 562 A.2d 1167, 1170 (Del. 1989) (considering all evidence 
available to the police in determining probable cause, which included “a series of field 
sobriety tests, [all of] which Clendaniel performed poorly.”). 
42 See supra note 12.  The sole exception appears to be Maxwell, and in that case there is 
no suggestion that the police administered any field tests at all. 
 
28 
 
In that case, the Court considered the import of the passed tests, but 
determined, on the totality of the circumstances, that there was probable 
cause because the five failed tests and other subjective evidence outweighed 
the two passed tests.43   
The other cases the majority cites did not consider passed field tests, 
but not because the Court segmented the evidence, or ignored the tests.  The 
Court did not consider the passed tests because they were improperly 
administered. Defendants in those cases failed each properly administered 
field test, and the Court did consider the failed tests as part of its “totality” 
analysis.  The immediate case is clearly different, since Lefebvre passed all 
properly administered tests.  According to the “totality of the circumstances” 
approach of our precedent, then, we should ascribe significance to these 
passed tests and consider them alongside all other available evidence when 
determining probable cause. 
We believe the majority’s new approach sends an unmistakable 
message to the police that in order to achieve probable cause, they need not 
consider a balance, but a scale; rather than step back and weigh all the 
evidence of impairment against evidence of no impairment, as a faithful 
“totality” test should, they can simply consider evidence suggesting 
                                          
 
43 Perrera, 2004 WL 1535815, at *1. 
29 
 
impairment, count up, and then cut the inquiry off once they have passed the 
threshold for probable cause. 
 
The majority’s holding here reserves successful field test results for 
assertions of innocence where defendants refuse a chemical breath test.  The 
holding, as a practical matter, makes field test results inconsistent with 
impairment inadmissible for probable cause determinations because there 
could be hypothetical “innocent” explanations for passing, while innocent 
explanations for careless driving may not be considered part of the mix.  We 
consider this a truly extraordinary result. 
 
In our view, a proper application of a totality of the circumstances test 
leads to only one conclusion in this case -- consideration of all the facts does 
not suggest that there was a “fair probability” that the defendant committed a 
DUI offense before being required to submit to a chemical breath test.  We 
cannot agree with the majority’s analysis or with its conclusions, and we 
respectfully dissent.