STATE v. SOLLARS (2021)

ORDER

Mark Sollars appeals his convictions for driving while intoxicated and resisting a lawful stop, after a jury trial. On appeal, Sollars claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence and admitting all evidence of his condition during his stop and detention. Sollars claims that the totality of circumstances show that the arresting officer's suspicion of criminal activity was unreasonable, making his warrantless stop of Sollars unlawful. Sollars asserts that his demeanor and statements following the unlawful stop constituted the vast majority of the evidence of his guilt for driving while intoxicated, making their admission outcome determinative. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

PER CURIAM: