☢ test - Í

State v. Gauthier, 326 Ga.App. 473, 756 S.E.2d 705 (March 21, 2014). In DUI prosecution, trial court erred by granting motion to suppress; officer had probable cause to arrest for DUI. “At the time Gauthier was arrested, the officers had observed that an odor of alcohol emanated from Gauthier's vehicle and possibly her breath, Gauthier had watery, bloodshot eyes, she admitted to having consumed a ‘mixed drink,’ and her performance on all three field sobriety evaluations indicated she was impaired. The arrest was supported by probable cause. See Blankenship [ v. State, 301 Ga.App. 602, 604-605(b), 688 S.E.2d 395 (2009)]; Harkleroad v. State, 317 Ga.App. 509, 511(1), 732 S.E.2d 278 (2012); Cann–Hanson v. State, 223 Ga.App. 690, 691(1), 478 S.E.2d 460 (1996).” Durrance v. State, 319 Ga.App. 866, 738 S.E.2d 692 (February 22, 2013). DUI per se conviction affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress. Contrary to defendant’s argument, police had probable cause to arrest for DUI. “Significantly, the evidence reveals that the officer smelled an odor of alcohol on Durrance and observed that he was sluggish and off-balance, his eyes were bloodshot and watery, and his speech was slurred. See Cann–Hanson v. State, 223 Ga.App. 690, 691(1), 478 S.E.2d 460 (1996) (‘Even in the absence of the field sobriety tests, the officer's observation that [the defendant] had bloodshot, watery eyes and exuded an odor of alcohol was sufficient to show probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence.’) (citations omitted). Additionally, an alco-sensor test administered to Durrance tested positive. See Lenhardt v. State, 271 Ga.App. 453, 454(1), 610 S.E.2d 86 (2005) (police may use the results of alco-sensor tests in determining whether probable cause exists to arrest a motorist for DUI).” State v. Jennings, 318 Ga.App. 237, 733 S.E.2d 522 (October 26, 2012). In DUI prosecution, trial court’s grant of motion to suppress was not clearly erroneous; “the evidence presented at the suppression hearing supports that trial court's finding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to suspect the defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was a less safe driver.” In this case, while there was evidence showing the presence of alcohol in Jennings' body, the testimony from the arresting officer was, at best, conflicting as to whether he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which impaired his ability to drive safely. While the officer testified about certain physical manifestations that might indicate impairment, he also testified that other factors, such as the uneven, gravel- covered terrain and fatigue, could have caused those physical manifestations.” Court wasn’t required to credit officer’s testimony “that he believed Jennings was under the influence of alcohol when he encountered him.” Harkleroad v. State, 317 Ga.App. 509, 732 S.E.2d 278 (August 29, 2012). DUI and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress breath test, as arrest was supported by probable cause. “[T]he trial court was entitled to conclude not only that Harkleroad's speeding , her bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol coming from the car gave the officer reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain her for the purpose of administering the HGN test , [fn] but also that when Harkleroad failed that test, the officer had probable cause to arrest her for DUI.” Rowell v. State, 312 Ga.App. 559, 718 S.E.2d 890 (November 15, 2011). DUI and weaving convictions affirmed; evidence established probable cause for DUI arrest. “The officer had already observed her abrupt stop at the traffic light, which led her to cross the traffic bar and veer into another lane. After the traffic stop, he smelled the odor of alcohol and observed that she was unsteady on her feet, that her eyes were red and that her speech was somewhat slurred.” Mayberry v. State, 312 Ga.App. 510, 718 S.E.2d 822 (October 19, 2011). DUI conviction affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress, as officer had probable cause to arrest for DUI where “the undisputed evidence that Mayberry veered towards the opposing lane of traffic and failed to maintain her lane, when combined with the other undisputed evidence that she had consumed alcohol, was sufficient to create probable cause for her arrest. See Slayton [ v. State, 281 Ga.App. 650, 652–653(1) (637 S.E.2d 67) (2006)] (affirming denial of motion to suppress, where there was testimony that defendant who had been drinking made an abrupt lane change causing her car to become ‘unstable’); Sledge [ v. State, 264 Ga.App. 612, 613-615 (591 S.E.2d 479) (2003)] (affirming denial of motion to suppress, where there was testimony reflecting ‘obvious reckless driving’ by the defendant).” Brandon v. State, 308 Ga.App. 239, 706 S.E.2d 772 (March 7, 2011). DUI and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress, as officer had probable cause for DUI arrest “given the presence of only a single set of skid marks on the roadway indicating that Brandon had over corrected to avoid an oncoming vehicle. Moreover, there also is Brandon's admission as to the consumption of alcohol and the result of blood-alcohol testing of his breath.” Wilson v. State, 308 Ga.App. 383, 708 S.E.2d 14 (February 22, 2011). Convictions for DUI and related offenses affirmed; evidence supported trial court’s finding that arrest for DUI was supported by probable cause. “‘A witness who satisfactorily shows that he had opportunity to observe, and did observe, the condition of another, may testify