Court Opinion

ID: 9785084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:02:38.794244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:03.600188
License: Public Domain

*297STEELE, 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 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 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 Le-febvre’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 *298ignored in cases where, 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 [ ] faet[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.
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 “multitasking” 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 *299showed 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 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 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 *300the 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 — Perr-era — ever considered the mitigating effect of passed field tests. In that ease, 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 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.

. Clendaniel v. Voshell, 562 A.2d 1167, 1170 (Del.1989).

. 21 Del. C. § 4177(c)(5).

. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-31, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); State v. Maxwell, 624 A.2d 926, 928 (Del.1993).

. 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 held tests and two passed field tests, and holding that probable cause existed under the totality of the circumstances test).

.The majority aptly refers to this as the "concept of divided attention.”

. Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930.

. Id.

. 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/Drivinglssues/l 107196613 .html.

.Indeed, 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.

. 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.

. Maxwell, 624 A.2d at 930.

. 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 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.

. 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 *300the police in determining probable cause, which included "a series of field sobriety tests, [all of] which Clendaniel performed poorly.”).

. 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.

. Perrera, 2004 WL 1535815, at *1.