Yingst v. State

Ruffin, Judge.

James Yingst was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”). On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in finding that the roadblock at which he was stopped was constitutional and in denying his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm.

In an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. If, however, “the outcome of a motion to suppress depends on the credibility of the witnesses or on disputed facts, and the trial court has not committed an error of law, the…