Driver agreed to take field sobriety tests. Based on his performance on those tests, Subke believed Driver was intoxicated and arrested him for driving while intoxicated. He transported him to the Pacific Police Department where another officer performed a breathalyzer test. After Subke's testimony, but before the State had concluded its case, the court interrupted the evidence to find that the Director had not shown Subke had either probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop Driver. As a result, the court entered its judgment in favor of Driver, ordering the Director to reinstate his driving privileges.
Director now appeals.
We must affirm the decision of the trial court unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. In that case, Riche appealed from the suspension of his driving privileges, arguing that there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the initial stop of him. The Supreme Court rejected his argument, concluding the exclusionary rule is inapplicable in civil driver's license suspension and revocation proceedings. Therefore, the Director does not have the burden of showing the lawfulness of or probable cause for a stop in order to revoke or suspend driving privileges under section 302.500-302.540. As a result, the trial court erroneously declared and applied the law in holding otherwise.