Following a bench trial, Steven Laguines was found guilty of driving with a suspended license. In his sole enumeration on appeal, Laguines contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We find no error and affirm Laguines’ conviction. The record shows that the chief deputy of the Wilkes County Sheriff’s Office authorized two deputies to set up and run a checkpoint to check motorists’ driver’s licenses. In setting up the checkpoint, the deputies put one marked patrol car with emergency lights flashing on each side of the road. The deputies wore reflective traffic vests with attached flashlights and stood in the middle of the road to alert oncoming drivers of the checkpoint. The deputies stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint for approximately one minute. Twenty minutes into the checkpoint, the deputies stopped Laguines’ vehicle and subsequently arrested Laguines for driving with a suspended license.
Laguines filed a motion to suppress, contending the checkpoint was unconstitutional because 1 the decision to implement the checkpoint was made by deputies in the field, rather than by a supervisor, and 2 the checkpoint was not sufficiently identified as a license checkpoint. The trial court denied Laguines’ motion to suppress, finding the state had presented evidence to support the constitutional validity of the traffic stop. In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court.1 While the trial court’s findings as to disputed facts in a ruling on a motion to suppress will be reviewed to determine whether the ruling was clearly erroneous, where, as here, the evidence at a hearing on a motion to suppress is uncontroverted and no question of credibility is presented, we review the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts de novo.2
