Dwayne Bryant was indicted for trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He moved to suppress evidence seized after his arrest, arguing that the arrest was not supported by probable cause. The trial court granted the motion. The state appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in ruling that the police lacked probable cause to arrest Bryant. We agree and reverse the trial court’s judgment. When we review a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress, the evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court; the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility are adopted unless they are clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them. Where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.1 In the instant case, the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress contains no findings of fact. The trial judge did, however, announce his reasoning at the suppression hearing. In that announcement, the only evidence he referred to was testimony presented by the state, apparently finding it to be credible. Nevertheless, the judge concluded as a matter of law that, based on the state’s evidence, the arrest of Bryant at the site of a drug transaction arranged by an untested confidential informant was premature and without probable cause because that drug transaction had not been consummated prior to the arrest. Based on the record before us, there are no findings of fact by the trial court that are in dispute or subject to review since the court apparently accepted the state’s evidence as credible. Rather, this case involves the trial court’s erroneous application of the law to that evidence, and therefore our review of the trial court’s ruling is de novo.2
Evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing establishes that a person suspected of selling illegal drugs became a confidential informant and agreed to help a police narcotics unit apprehend the informant’s drug supplier. The informant told police that the supplier went by the name “Woo.” The informant provided Woo’s phone number, which was listed in the informant’s cellular phone. The informant then called Woo, and one of the investigators testified that she was able to overhear the conversation, during which the informant arranged to have Woo deliver nine ounces of powder cocaine in exchange for $5,000, plus another nine ounces of cocaine that the informant would pay for later.
