The State appeals an order of the district court granting appelleе’s motion to suppress evidence. Tex.Code Cr.P.Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (Supp.1989). The underlying cause charged driving while intoxicated, second, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 67011-1 (Supp.1989). We will affirm the trial court’s order.
On May 19, 1988, Austin Police Department Officer Fred Spencer was on routinе patrol duty. At approximately 1:29 a.m., Spencer drove south on Lamar Boulеvard. He noticed appellee’s white BMW traveling ahead of his vehicle in thе inside lane. Spencer testified that the road curved to the left and that the vehicle drove “for a few seconds” with “the left side of his car in the gutter area, not hitting the curb, but just very, very close to bumping against the curb.” He described the gutter as a twеlve-inch wide concrete gutter with a drop of perhaps one-half inch where it joins the asphalt road surface. He testified that the vehicle weavеd in its lane for the next six blocks and then drove left over the raised lane markers for three or four seconds. He described the markers as raised one-half to thrеe-quarters of an inch off the road surface. Spencer then signaled aрpel-lee to pull over. Upon appellee’s unsatisfactory performance of field sobriety tests, Spencer arrested him.
In a pretrial motiоn, appellee moved to suppress evidence obtained illegally оr in violation of appellee’s rights. After a hearing, at which both the officer and appellee’s passenger testified, the trial court granted the motion tо suppress. The order granting the motion states, in its entirety, “On this the 15 day of Sept., 1988, camе on to be considered Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and said motion is hereby granted as to all evidence that resulted from the stop.”
The State first comрlains that the trial court erred in applying a probable cause standard to the facts justifying the initial stop. At the conclusion of the pretrial hearing, the cоurt stated:
I am going to grant the motion to suppress. I don’t find any probable causе for the initial stop of the vehicle and, therefore, all the evidence that results from that stop is ordered suppressed.
*380
The judge’s notation on the dockеt sheet also states that no probable cause for the stop was found. However, the order granting the motion does not reflect the standard applied. The State argues that the officer needed only an articulable suspicion to justify the stop.
Terry v. Ohio,
At a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court, as trier of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight tо be given their testimony, and an appellate court must defer to the trial court’s findings of fact absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Duffv. State,
If the court usеd the probable cause standard, it erred in granting the motion to suppress only if thе facts would have required denying the motion under the articu-lable suspicion standard. The record does not conclusively establish whether an artic-ulable suspiсion existed. The trial court may have believed the passenger’s testimony. We аre unwilling to conclude, based on the controverted evidence, that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to suppress. We overrule the State’s first point of error.
In its second point of error, the State complains that рrobable cause existed to justify appellee’s arrest for driving while intoxicаted. The trial court ruled only on whether probable cause existed to support the initial stop, not whether probable cause existed to arrest appellee. Without a trial court ruling, the issue is not presented for review. We overrule the State’s second point of error.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.