Herbert pleaded not guilty. The trial court denied the motion. Herbert was found guilty of both counts. He appeals the trial court s denial of his motion to suppress and his underage drinking and driving conviction. When reviewing a pretrial suppression decision where the facts are not in dispute, this court determines whether the evidence requires suppression as a matter of law.
Questions of law receive de novo review.
Herbert argues that the court erred in refusing to suppress the results of the PBT because Officer Juhl did not have a specific and articulable basis to administer the test. Under the implied consent law, a driver may be required to provide a preliminary breath test when an officer has reason to believe, from the manner in which the person is driving, operating, controlling, or acting upon departure from a vehicle, that the driver is under the influence of alcohol. An officer may request a PBT if he can point to specific, articulable facts that form a basis to believe that a person is or has been driving, operating, or controlling a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. An officer need not possess probable cause to believe that a DWI violation has occurred in order to administer a preliminary breath test. Articulable suspicion is an objective standard and is determined from the totality of the circumstances.