Title: Perrera v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 488, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 25, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
PAULA M. PERRERA  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 488, 2003 
Defendant Below,  
) 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
)  Cr. A. Nos. IK02-12-0733 and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  IK02-12-0735 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  May 11, 2004 
Decided:  June 25, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th  day of June 2004, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, it 
appears to the Court that: 
1. 
A Superior Court judge convicted Paula Perrera of a Fourth DUI 
offense1 and Overtaking a Vehicle on the Left.2  On appeal, Perrera argues the trial 
judge abused her discretion by denying the defense’s motion to suppress the 
evidence of Perrera’s intoxilyzer results.   
2. 
On the afternoon of December 18, 2002, Dover Police Officer David 
Gist was stopped in traffic on northbound Rte. 13.  Perrera passed his stopped 
                                                 
1 21 Del. C. § 4177. 
2 21 Del. C. § 4116. 
 
2
police car on the left by driving through the grass median between northbound and 
southbound lanes of Rte. 13.  Immediately after Gist stopped Perrera, she got out 
of her car and approached Gist.  He noticed that her eyes were bloodshot and 
glassy, and she smelled of alcohol.  She admitted to drinking two beers, and beer 
cans were visible on the floor of her car.  At the scene Perrera failed the alphabet 
and counting field sobriety tests, as well as the portable breathalyzer test (PBT).   
3. 
Due to the heavy traffic on Rte. 13 at that time, Gist decided, for 
safety reasons, to take Perrera to the Dover Police Department to administer 
additional field sobriety tests.  At the police station, Perrera passed the finger-to-
nose and one-leg stand tests, but failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and a 
second PBT.  Based on the results of all tests administered, Gist was convinced 
that Perrera was too impaired to operate a motor vehicle lawfully.  He then gave 
Perrera an intoxilyzer test.  She failed with a blood alcohol content (BAC) reading 
of 0.132.   
4.  
Perrera concedes that Gist had sufficient probable cause to stop her 
vehicle, but argues that there was no probable cause to require her to take the 
intoxilyzer test.  At trial, before the introduction of the intoxilyzer results, defense 
counsel moved to suppress the BAC reading on the basis that the police officer 
lacked probable cause to test Perrera.  After hearing argument from counsel and 
reviewing Gist’s testimony, the trial judge denied the motion.   
 
3
5.  
In this case, competent evidence supports the trial judge’s factual 
findings.3  When Perrera drove in the grass median to pass Gist’s stopped police 
car, reasonable suspicion existed for Gist to pursue Perrera and stop her motor 
vehicle.  Further, considering Perrera’s physical appearance, her admission of 
alcohol consumption, and the plainly visible beer cans in her vehicle, Gist had a 
reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain her at the scene to administer field 
sobriety tests.4  Based on heavy traffic conditions at the time of the stop and her 
failure of two field tests, Gist appropriately transported Perrera to the police station 
for further testing.5  The totality of the circumstances here constituted probable 
cause for Gist to administer the intoxilyzer test.  Mixed results in field sobriety 
tests do not extinguish probable cause if other sufficient factors are present.6  All of 
the police officers’ observations after initial contact with the defendant may be 
considered factors used to support a reasonable articulable suspicion that may be 
combined with past custody observations to weigh for a probable cause 
determination.  Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion by denying 
the motion to suppress.7   
                                                 
3 Virdin v. State, 780 A.2d 1024, 1030 (Del. 2001).   
4 Pike v. Shahan, 2002 WL 31999372, at *2 (Del. Com. Pl. 2002); State v. Kang, 2001 WL 
1729162, at *6 (Del. Super. 2001). 
5 Williams v. Shahan, 1993 WL 81264, at *1 (Del. Super. 1993). 
6 See Cantrell v. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 1996 WL 453425, at *1 (Del. Super. 1996); Tribble v. 
Shahan, 1998 WL 34058028, at *1 (Del. Com. Pl. 1998).   
7 Virdin, 780 A.2d at 1030. 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice