Following a stipulated bench trial, Russell Anthony Davis appeals his conviction for possessing cocaine1 and for driving while cocaine was in his blood.2 His sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the cocaine found in his pants pocket during a pat-down of his person. We agree with the trial court that under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the cocaine would have been found once Davis was arrested for DUI which offense the officer was investigating at the time of the pat-down, and we therefore affirm. “When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we apply the ‘any evidence’ standard, which means that we sustain all of the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by any evidence. We construe all evidence presented in favor of the trial court’s findings and judgment.” Punctuation omitted. Blankenship v. State .3 Because Davis intensely cross-examined the officer and challenged his credibility, we do not apply a de novo standard of review, which applies only where the facts are undisputed. Id. See State v. Starks. 4
So construed, the evidence shows that while driving a vehicle on July 9, 2008, Davis approached a police road block designed to check for sobriety and driver’s licenses. Although there were no vehicles in front of Davis, he inexplicably stopped twenty feet in front of the road block and began moving erratically in his car. When Davis finally pulled up to the road block, an officer spoke to him through the driver’s window and asked for Davis’s license and proof of insurance. The officer immediately smelled burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle and noted that Davis’s eyes were “very, very dilated,” which indicated to the officer that Davis was under the influence of drugs. After Davis could not produce his license or proof of insurance, the officer had him pull his vehicle over to the side and asked him to exit the vehicle.