State v. Wetzell

The majority concludes that, before Decker opened the pickup door, he had a subjective belief that it was more likely than not that defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants. Because the trial court did not make that finding and the evidence does not support doing so, I dissent.

Although defendant argued at the suppression hearing that, by opening the door, Decker conducted a search that he did not have probable cause to conduct, the trial court did not make any findings related to that argument. Instead, the trial court found that Decker had opened the car door “[t]o prevent…