☢ test - Í

“The evidence showed that Kelly not only smelled of alcohol and failed field sobriety tests, but that she sped through a stop sign. Accordingly, the jury was authorized to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for her to drive. See Davidson v. State, 237 Ga.App. 580, 581(1), 516 S.E.2d 90 (1999).” Yarbrough v. State, 241 Ga.App. 777, 527 S.E.2d 628 (January 11, 2000). DUI and related convictions affirmed; evidence was sufficient to prove defendant’s less safe driving ability. “The evidence showed the following additional circumstances [besides mere driving]: (1) Yarbrough's alcohol concentration level was more than twice the legal limit; (2) he testified that he had drunk very heavily that night and was too intoxicated to drive safely, which was why Alan was driving him; and (3) when [Officer] Langley encountered him, he smelled heavily of alcohol and had slurred speech. There was sufficient evidence to find Yarbrough was a less safe driver.” Byrd v. State, 240 Ga.App. 35446, 523 S.E.2d 578 (October 13, 1999). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for DUI. “Here, the arresting officer testified that Byrd smelled of alcohol, that he “looked like he was intoxicated,” that Byrd engaged in furtive conduct, Castillo v. State, 232 Ga.App. 354, 357, 502 S.E.2d 261 (1998) ( furtive conduct at approach of law officers reflects consciousness of guilt), that he tested positive on the alco-sensor, that he behaved violently after his arrest, Heath v. State, 229 Ga.App. 69, 70, 493 S.E.2d 225 (1997) ( belligerent behavior may be a sign of intoxication), that he admitted to drinking alcohol, and that he refused the breath test. OCGA § 40-6-392(d) ( refusal to take breath test is admissible as evidence of guilt ). The officer also testified, based on his experience in DUI cases, that Byrd was driving under the influence of alcohol and that his driving ability was impaired by alcohol to the extent that he was a less safe driver.” Walker v. State, 239 Ga.App. 831, 521 S.E.2d 861 (August 27, 1999). Defendant’s conviction for driving under the influence of a drug was supported by evidence of “defendant's refusal in the case sub judice to submit to a state- administered blood test, along with proof of defendant's erratic driving (weaving off the road), her slurred speech, her unsteadiness on her feet and her inability to pass field sobriety tests.” Lanier v. State, 237 Ga.App. 875, 517 S.E.2d 106 (May 4, 1999). Evidence supported conviction for less safe DUI: at a roadblock, “Lanier pulled through the check point and traveled an additional 100 yards before stopping. Trooper Gunnin testified that he detected a strong odor of alcoholic beverage about Lanier, that Lanier’s eyes were red, his speech was slurred, and he was unsteady on his feet. Additionally, Lanier admitted, at the time of the stop, that he was ‘drunk.’” Sheffield v. State, 237 Ga.App. 701, 516 S.E.2d 563 (April 21, 1999). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for DUI – less safe, specifically that defendant had operated the vehicle while under the influence. Responding to “a call regarding a 1973 Ford truck blocking a roadway, … Deputy Floyd approached the pickup and tapped on the door. The truck’s engine was running, and he could see Sheffield slumped over the steering wheel.” Defendant was obviously intoxicated. Held, despite defendant’s argument “that, since neither officer saw him actually drive the vehicle, the State had failed to prove the charge since there were other reasonable hypotheses for his presence in the truck,” evidence was sufficient to support conclusion that defendant drove while intoxicated. N. LICENSE SUSPENSION See PROCEDURE – DRIVER’S LICENSES, below O. MIRANDA/SELF-INCRIMINATION 1. AND FIELD SOBRIETY EVALUATIONS Appling v. State, 320 Ga.App. 379, 739 S.E.2d 816 (March 14, 2013). DUI conviction affirmed. Trial court properly denied motion to suppress field sobriety evaluations, as defendant wasn’t in custody for Miranda purposes. “None of the officers told Appling that he appeared to be intoxicated or that they intended to arrest him prior to [Officer] Dale's formal arrest. Appling was not handcuffed or directed where to stand or sit while waiting on Dale to arrive. Although there were a total of four officers on the scene, the totality of circumstances does not evince an arrest.” Rowell v. State, 312 Ga.App. 559, 718 S.E.2d 890 (November 15, 2011). DUI and weaving convictions affirmed; Miranda wasn’t required for field sobriety evaluations. “[T]he trial court could have properly interpreted [Officer] Hardage's repeated commands to ‘blow, blow, blow’ as instructing [defendant] as to the length of her breath and not as an attempt to force her to submit to the test. But Hardage's statements that he would take Rowell to jail if she did not properly perform the test are more troubling. … Although Hardage may have … intended to inform Rowell of her options under the law, that is not what he did. Rather, he simply told her that he would take her to jail if she did not perform the test