☢ test - Í

other field sobriety evaluations because they were parked on a steep grade. Importantly, trial court’s ruling did not question officer’s credibility, only the sufficiency of the evidence indicating intoxication. “Given Sledge’s conduct while driving, the odor of alcohol surrounding him, his bloodshot and glassy eyes, and the result of the alco-sensor test, Smith had probable cause to arrest Sledge for driving under the influence. [See cits. below] Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting Sledge’s motion to suppress.” Based on “ Temples v. State, 228 Ga.App. 228, 231 (491 S.E.2d 444) (1997) (officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI based on odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath, defendant’s bloodshot and watery eyes, and positive reading from alco-sensor); Lee v. State, 222 Ga.App. 389, 391(2) (474 S.E.2d 281) (1996) (officer had probable cause to arrest driver for DUI following wreck given the odor of alcohol around her person and in her car, her ‘glassy’ eyes, and her admission that she had consumed alcohol earlier in the day); Herkert v. State, 177 Ga. App. 610(1) (340 S.E.2d 251) (1986) (officer had probable cause to arrest defendant after observing defendant’s erratic and potentially dangerous driving, smelling alcohol on the defendant, and noting defendant’s bloodshot eyes).” Accord, Kellogg v. State , 288 Ga.App. 265, 653 S.E.2d 841 (November 6, 2007). Dougherty v. State, 259 Ga.App. 618, 578 S.E.2d 256 (February 12, 2003). Dicta: “As we have previously held, an officer’s observation that a motorist has ‘bloodshot, watery eyes and exude[s] an odor of alcohol [is] sufficient to show probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence.’” Citing Cann-Hanson v. State, 223 Ga.App. 690, 690-691(1), 478 S.E.2d 460 (1996). Accord, Frederick v. State , 270 Ga.App. 397, 606 S.E.2d 615 (November 9, 2004) (“[T]he experienced officer’s undisputed testimony that Frederick smelled of alcohol, admitted that he had been drinking, and had glossy eyes sufficed to create probable cause for the arrest.”); Kellogg v. State , 288 Ga.App. 265, 653 S.E.2d 841 (November 6, 2007). State v. Batty, 259 Ga.App. 431, 577 S.E.2d 98 (February 4, 2003). Arrest lacked probable cause where only evidence of intoxication was odor of alcohol on breath. Trial court, in its discretion, could find minor traffic offenses (improper right turn on red, following too closely) either not alcohol-related or not credible. See also Gray (May 15, 2004), above. Distinguished in Moody (June 15, 2005), above. Albert v. State, 236 Ga.App. 146, 511 S.E.2d 244 (January 28, 1999). “Here, the evidence shows that when Albert was pulled over, both Trooper Welch and Trooper Stephens noticed the odor of marijuana and the fact that Albert had red, glassy eyes. Welch noticed that Albert’s speech was slurred. Stephens, who administered the HGN test, found that Albert exhibited four signs of impairment. After Albert failed the HGN test, he was arrested. Given the totality of the circumstances, the officers had probable cause to arrest Albert.” State v. Burke, 230 Ga.App. 392, 496 S.E.2d 755 (January 30, 1998). Trial court properly granted motion to suppress; evidence was insufficient to show probable cause for arrest for DUI: one-vehicle motorcycle accident; defendant found at his residence nearby; defendant “said he had had two or three beers sometime before the accident,” and acknowledged his license was suspended based on a prior DUI; unable to do field sobriety evaluations due to injuries from accident; “no outward indicia of intoxication”; no witnesses to accident, defendant said he wrecked because someone pulled out of a driveway and hit him. “Compare Singleterry v. State, 227 Ga.App. 155, 489 S.E.2d 42 (1997) (glassy, watery eyes; smell of alcohol; erratic driving observed by officer; refusal to take field sobriety tests); Martin v. State, 214 Ga.App. 614(1), 448 S.E.2d 471 (1994) (Martin rear-ended a truck at 8:00 a.m. on Georgia 400; could not explain doing so; was wearing dark sunglasses which, when removed, revealed dilated eyes which remained dilated in daylight, which the officer’s training taught was a sign of drug use).” 4. EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY FOR CONVICTION Holman v. State, 329 Ga.App. 393, 765 S.E.2d 614 (October 29, 2014). Convictions for DUI and serious injury by vehicle affirmed; evidence supported DUI conviction. “[H]ere, there was testimony that prior to the accident, Holman was driving aggressively at an excessive rate of speed, weaving about the road before crossing the median and making impact with the victim's car. There was also testimony from a witness and law-enforcement officer that Holman ‘reeked’ of an alcoholic beverage, had ‘very, very red’ and bloodshot eyes, spoke with slurred speech, became belligerent, refused to submit to a State-administered test because he ‘knew’ it would test positive for alcohol, and admitted to drinking heavily the night before. Accordingly, this evidence was sufficient to sustain Holman's conviction for DUI less safe.” Dorsey v. State, 327 Ga.App. 226, 757 S.E.2d 880 (April 21, 2014). Evidence supported defendant’s DUI-less safe conviction. “[G]iven the evidence regarding Dorsey's manner of driving in entering the roadway, the smell of alcohol on Dorsey's person, the positive result of the AlcoSensor test, Dorsey's performance on the field sobriety tests, the open containers of alcohol in the vehicle, and Dorsey's decision to flee from the scene, any rational trier of fact could have