The COA first held that, contrary to the district court's holding, Mr. Crane could not have been violating other pedestrian laws (like failing to cross at a crosswalk). Finally, the COA observed that simply consuming alcohol does not equate with being a hazard:
While it is clear from the record Crane had consumed alcohol, what is not clear is that he was intoxicated and a hazard in crossing the street to his friend's house. He crossed the street in a legal fashion, he had successfully crossed one street before the officers moved in to arrest him, he was able to walk and communicate successfully, and there were no cars approaching from either direction before or after Crane crossed the street. When the totality of the circumstances is considered, no objectively reasonable police officer would have had probable cause to arrest Crane for being a pedestrian under the influence. All evidence of criminal wrongdoing obtained after Crane's unlawful[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on December 28, 2015.]
seizure was therefore tainted.