Following a bench trial, Rodney Harris was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol per se and to the extent he was a less safe driver. He appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We find no error and affirm. Because the trial court sits as the trier of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress, its findings based upon any conflicting evidence are analogous to a jury verdict and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support them.1 When reviewing a trial court’s order on a motion to suppress, we must construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court, and we adopt the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility unless they are clearly erroneous.2 “As a reviewing court, we must accept the factual and credibility determinations and inferences drawn by the trier of fact, even if we disagree with them, as long as there is evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings.”3
Viewed in that light, the evidence shows that a police officer observed Harris driving erratically. During the mile or mile and a half that the officer followed Harris, Harris’ speed of travel fluctuated between 30 and 60 miles per hour, and his car weaved from the fog line to the center line several times. The officer initiated a traffic stop. When he approached Harris’ vehicle, the officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle. The officer asked Harris for his driver’s license, and Harris removed a credit or debit card twice before finally producing his license. When the officer asked Harris if he had anything to drink, Harris replied that he had a few beers at a friend’s house. The officer asked Harris to step out of the vehicle, and Harris had trouble maintaining his balance, using the vehicle to steady himself when he exited the car. The officer radioed a second officer to come to the scene and administer field sobriety evaluations.
