☢ test - Í

be admissible.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Polizzotto v. State, 248 Ga.App. 814, 816(1) (547 S.E.2d 390) (2001).” Accord, Amin v. State , 283 Ga.App. 830, 643 S.E.2d 4 (March 1, 2007); Clark v. State , 289 Ga.App. 884, 658 S.E.2d 372 (February 7, 2008) (no Miranda warning required before non-custodial alco-sensor); Bramlett v. State , 302 Ga.App. 527, 691 S.E.2d 333 (February 25, 2010) (non-custodial field sobriety evaluations – walk/turn and one-leg stand – not testimonial); Owens v. State , 308 Ga.App. 374, 707 S.E.2d 584 (March 10, 2011); State v. Holt , 334 Ga.App. 610, 780 S.E.2d 44 (November 17, 2015). State v. Pierce, 266 Ga.App. 233, 596 S.E.2d 725 (March 12, 2004). During traffic stop, after observing signs of alcohol use and defendant’s admission that he had had “two or three beers,” officer walked “toward Pierce’s open car door, saying, ‘ I’m just going to shut your car door so some other drunk doesn’t take it off. ’” Trial court found this comment sufficient to place defendant in custody, triggering Miranda and making subsequent non-Mirandized field sobriety evaluations inadmissible and subsequent implied consent reading untimely. Court of Appeals reverses; “when all the surrounding circumstances are considered, [officer’s] off-hand comment, though ill-advised, was insufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that his detention would not be temporary. [Cit.]” Distinguishes Price v. State , 269 Ga. 222, 498 S.E.2d 262 (1998), where defendant was told she was going to jail regardless of performance of field evaluations; “[h]ere, far from indicating that the tests were irrelevant, [officer] stated that the results of the field sobriety tests would determine Pierce’s status.” State v. Oliver, 261 Ga.App. 599, 583 S.E.2d 259 (June 11, 2003). Merely reading Miranda and implied consent warnings does not place defendant under arrest. “We will not penalize an officer for going the extra mile by informing a motorist suspected of alcohol impairment of his Miranda and Implied Consent rights prior to performing field sobriety tests, where, as here, that information is purely superfluous.” Officer read warnings as defendant was being treated at accident scene by paramedics. Trial court held that officer did not yet have probable cause for arrest, so subsequently-acquired evidence (FSE’s) must be suppressed. Court of Appeals reverses: even if defendant was under arrest, the subsequent investigation was authorized because officer had articulable suspicion of DUI; thus the evidence “is sufficiently attenuated from the illegality to be purged thereof.” “[T]he mere fact that an arrest is flawed does not render all subsequently discovered evidence inadmissible.” Razor v. State, 259 Ga.App. 196, 576 S.E.2d 604 (January 14, 2003). “[T]he deputy was not required to give a Miranda warning before administering field sobriety tests. Field sobriety tests are not statements, so they are not inadmissible even if the accused was in custody and no Miranda warnings were given.” This case ignores contrary authority under OCGA § 24-9-20(a) and is of dubious authority. State v. Foster, 255 Ga.App. 704, 566 S.E.2d 418 (June 10, 2002). Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress. Officer working security at bar warned obviously-drunk defendant-to-be that if he tried to drive, officer would arrest him for drunk driving. Defendant tried to drive anyway. Officer stopped him, performed field sobriety evaluations, then arrested defendant. Held, Miranda warnings were not required before field sobriety evaluations because defendant was not then under arrest, officer’s prior warning notwithstanding. Accord, Curles (May 28, 2010), above. State v. Picot, 255 Ga.App. 513, 565 S.E.2d 865 (May 23, 2002). Officers did not have to read Miranda warnings before asking for field sobriety evaluations unless they had actually placed defendant under arrest or led defendant to believe that she was under arrest. The fact that officers had probable cause to arrest or intended to arrest because of suspended driver’s license was inapposite unless such intention was communicated to defendant. “[T]he proper inquiry is whether the individual was formally arrested or restrained to a degree associated with a formal arrest, not whether the police had probable cause to arrest.” Bravo v. State, 249 Ga.App. 433, 548 S.E.2d 129 (April 30, 2001). Evidence that an accused, who was not in custody at the time, refused to perform field sobriety evaluations is admissible in a trial for DUI. A person’s right to remain silent as set forth in the 5 th Amendment, the Georgia Constitution, or OCGA § 24-9-20(a) does not attach until the person is under arrest. Accord, Long v. State , 271 Ga.App. 565, 610 S.E.2d 74 (December 6, 2004). Arce v. State, 245 Ga.App. 466, 538 S.E.2d 128 (August 4, 2000). DUI and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress evidence of her performance on field sobriety evaluations. “No Miranda warnings are required before administering field sobriety tests during a traffic stop unless the suspect is in custody. State v. Peters, 222 Ga.App. 484, 474 S.E.2d 623 (1996).” Accord, Long v. State , 271 Ga.App. 565, 610 S.E.2d 74 (December 6, 2004); Loden v. State , 271 Ga.App. 632, 610 S.E.2d 593 (February 14, 2005); Doyle v. State , 281 Ga.App. 592, 636 S.E.2d 751