Joshua Cash was convicted after a bench trial of driving under the influence, including a per se theory based on an intoxilyzer result. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the legality of the traffic investigation. The Court of Appeals held that the State had not established the statutory foundation required for the per se conviction. The evidence did not prove the necessary connection between the test result and the legally relevant driving conduct under the charged theory. The court distinguished the officer’s authority to investigate suspected impaired driving from the separate requirement that the State prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the proof did not support the conviction as entered, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The decision did not hold that every traffic stop based on an officer’s observation is unlawful or that the State could never pursue a different theory supported by admissible evidence. Two judges concurred.