ce problem alighting from his truck, and a fairly strong odor of alcohol."), rev. denied (Minn. July 26, 1985); State v. Murphy, No. A17-1689, 2018 WL 1997190, at *4-5 (Minn.App. Apr. 30, 2018) (reversing district court decision to suppress post-PBT evidence where, before administering the PBT, the officer noted a "lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes" during the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and an odor of consumed alcoholic beverages); State v. Folkert, No. A12-0854, 2013 WL 499764, at *6 (Minn.App. Feb. 11, 2013) (holding that successful completion of field sobriety tests did not dispel a trooper's reasonable suspicion of broader drug-related activity based on many physical indicia); State v. Krinke, No. A08-1670, 2009 WL 2447821, at *3 (Minn.App. Aug. 11, 2009) ("Krinke's performance on one of the field sobriety tests . . . tended to indicate that he was intoxicated."); Mack v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, No. A14-1595, 2015 WL 2457012, at *4 (Minn.App. May 26, 2015) (upholding a PBT request when the officer had learned that the suspect had an impaired-driving conviction after his reasonable suspicion had purportedly been dispelled). None of these cases resemble this one.