☢ test - Í

whether that person was under the influence of intoxicants and the extent thereof, stating the facts upon which the opinion is based.’ Lawrence v. State, 157 Ga.App. 264, 265 (277 S.E.2d 60) (1981). Here, the second officer testified as to the observations which led him to conclude that Wilson was under the influence and provided probable cause for arrest.” Parker v. State, 307 Ga.App. 61, 704 S.E.2d 438 (November 23, 2010). DUI conviction affirmed; officer had probable cause for DUI arrest. “[A]s explained by the trained and experienced officer, he believed Parker was ‘over the limit,’ and there was evidence to support findings that Parker performed a dangerous lane change; had watery and bloodshot eyes; admitted having consumed ‘a pitcher or two’ of beer with a friend; had a positive alco-sensor test; and exhibited a level of impairment based on her performance on the HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg-stand field sobriety tests. These facts were sufficient to give the officer probable cause to believe that Parker had committed a DUI violation.” Scoggins v. State, 306 Ga.App. 760, 703 S.E.2d 356 (November 10, 2010). DUI conviction affirmed; officer had probable cause for arrest: besides bloodshot eyes and odor of alcohol, “there was evidence that Scoggins discharged a firearm from a moving vehicle; that he and his passenger had been drinking before the stop; an open container was found in the car; a gun was discovered under the driver's seat; and a spent cartridge was found on the ground just beyond driver's seat. Given the foregoing, we conclude that Officer Heller had probable cause to arrest Scoggins for the offense of DUI- less safe.” State v. Encinas, 302 Ga.App. 334, 691 S.E.2d 257 (February 12, 2010). No abuse of discretion where trial court granted motion to suppress, finding no probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI. “The trial court found that the State's case for probable cause to arrest consisted of the odor of alcohol, the HGN test, and Encinas's refusal to perform further tests. The court also found that there were other factors indicating that Encinas was not impaired; namely, his speech, steadiness on his feet, and the fact that he appeared ‘normal’ on the videotape.” “Here, there was no evidence that alcohol affected Encinas's ability to drive. In a similar case, this Court upheld the trial court's determination that there was not probable cause to arrest even though the officer testified that the defendant exuded a strong odor of alcohol, had bloodshot watery eyes, and refused to take any field sobriety tests. State v. Ellison, 271 Ga.App. 898, 901 (611 S.E.2d 129) (2005).” Encinas disapproved on these grounds, Hughes v. State , 296 Ga. 744, 770 S.E.2d 636 (March 16, 2015). Brown v. State, 302 Ga.App. 272, 690 S.E.2d 907 (February 10, 2010). Officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI. 1. “[T]hat the deputy failed to conduct field sobriety tests or to question Brown about his alcohol consumption does not necessarily defeat a finding of probable cause to arrest for DUI. What matters is what the deputy observed and reasonably believed.” 2. “Here, the deputy observed that Brown had trouble getting out of his car, that he was unsteady on his feet and almost fell, that his eyes were glassy and blood-shot, that his body and breath smelled of an alcoholic beverage, that he had marijuana (an illegal intoxicant) in his possession, and that he was driving at night while playing his music loud enough to be heard three quarters of a mile away. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had probable cause to believe Brown was actually in physical control of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (and possibly marijuana) to a degree which rendered him incapable of driving safely.” State v. Damato, 302 Ga.App. 181, 690 S.E.2d 478 (January 29, 2010). Trial court properly granted motion to suppress breath test results, could find that evidence didn’t support DUI arrest. “[E]vidence which shows only that a defendant had alcohol in her body while driving provides insufficient probable cause to arrest for DUI. Impaired driving ability depends solely upon an individual's response to alcohol. Because individual responses to alcohol vary, the presence of alcohol, in a defendant's body, by itself, does not support an inference that the defendant was an impaired driver.’ (Punctuation and citation omitted; emphasis in original.) Handley [ v. State, 294 Ga.App. 236, 237-238 (668 S.E.2d 855) (2008)]. Moreover, we have repeatedly held that the odor of alcohol on a driver's breath or a positive result on an alco- sensor test shows only the presence of alcohol and does not support an inference that the driver is intoxicated and it is less safe for her to drive. Id. at 238. The probable cause needed to conduct an arrest for DUI requires that the officer have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information that a suspect was actually in physical control of a moving vehicle, while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered her incapable of driving safely. Id. at 237. Here, the state failed to offer sufficient evidence showing that Damato's driving ability was impaired due to alcohol consumption. The odor of alcohol on Damato's breath, her admission that she had a few drinks earlier in the evening, and a positive result on an alco-sensor test do not provide probable cause to arrest her for DUI several hours after the consumption of alcohol. [ State v. Ellison, 271 Ga.App. 898, 901-902(3)(b) (611 S.E.2d 129) (2005)]. And, although the officer testified that he believed Damato was a less safe driver that morning due to her alcohol intake, ‘the trier of fact is not bound by this opinion, even if it is uncontradicted. ’ Id. supra at 902(4). The trial court