After denying a motion to suppress, the trial court conducted a bench trial and found James Matthew Bennett guilty of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute.1 On appeal, Bennett contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. For reasons that follow, we reverse. In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment, and we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to the undisputed facts.2 Additionally, we adopt the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility unless they are clearly erroneous.3 So viewed, the record shows that on December 28, 2004, Deputy Scott Boggus of the Dawson County Sheriff’s Department was in a marked patrol car in the parking lot of a retail establishment. At approximately midnight, Boggus saw Bennett’s vehicle exit the rear area of the building. Although he did not know what Bennett was doing behind the building, he was nevertheless suspicious. Boggus followed Bennett in his vehicle for four or five miles. The officer conceded that although he did not suspect drug activity, he wanted to pull Bennett over and was looking for “any type of violation of the law.” During the last two miles, Boggus observed —measuring Bennett’s speed against the patrol car speedometer —that Bennett was driving 60 to 65 miles an hour in a 55 mile per hour zone.
Boggus initiated a traffic stop based upon his suspicion of Bennett and the speed limit violation. At Boggus’s request, Bennett exited his vehicle and produced his driver’s licence and proof of insurance. After confirming the validity of both documents, Boggus noticed that Bennett’s license listed an address in another county. Boggus asked whether he still lived at that address, and Bennett replied that he had “moved back in” with his mother in Dawson County. Boggus testified that when he asked Bennett when he had moved, Bennett “could not give him a specific time” and failed to reply. As a result, Boggus decided to issue Bennett a courtesy warning “for failure to change address within a 30-day period.” Boggus testified that he could have issued a citation or a verbal warning, but because he “preferred” written warnings, he elected to give the citation. However, he did not have any warning forms in his possession.
