THI RD DI VI SI ON

ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, BETHEL, J.

, and SENI OR A PPELLA T E JUDGE PHI PPS

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

M ar ch 29, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 76 4 . CANELAS v . THE STATE.

E LLI N G T O N , Pres i d i n g J ud g e.

Fo l l owi n g a b en ch t ri al

, t h e St at e C o u rt o f Gwi n n et t Co u n t y fo u nd Ro g er

Can el as g u i l t y o f d ri v i n g u n d er t h e i n fl u en ce o f al co h o l t o th e ex t en t i t w as l es s s afe

t o d ri v e, OCGA § 4 0-6 -3 9 1 (a) (1 ); d ri v i n g wh i l e h av i n g an al co ho l co n cen t rat i o n o f

0 .0 8 g ram s o r m o re (DUI p er s e), OCGA § 4 0 -6 -3 9 1 (a) (5 ); an d d ri v i n g wi t h o u t a

v al i d d ri v er’ s l i cen s e, O C G A § 4 0 -5 -2 0 (a). Fo l lo wi n g th e d en i al of h is m o t i o n fo r

a n ew t ri al

, Can el as ap p eal s

, ch al l en g i n g t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce. Can el as al s o

arg u es t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y in g h i s m o ti o n t o s u p p res s (1 ) b ecau s e t h ere

was n o t p ro b ab l e cau s e t o arres t h i m fo r DUI, an d (2 ) b ecau se h e was no t p l aced

u n d er act u a l

, v al i d arres t p ri o r t o t h e read in g o f t h e i m p l i ed co n s en t n o t ice. Fo r t h e

reas on s set fo rt h b el o w, w e rev ers e Can el as ’ s co nv i ct i o n fo r d ri vi n g wi t h o u t a v al idl i cen se, v acat e h i s s en ten ce, an d rem an d t h i s cas e t o t h e tri al co urt fo r res en t en ci n g.

W e affi rm

t h e ju d gm en t i n al l o t h er as p ect s

.

Vi ewed i n th e li g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o su p po rt t h e v erd i ct

, 1 t h e ev i d en ce s h o ws

t h e fo l l o wi n g

. O n J u n e 1 2

, 2 0 1 6

, a wi t n es s cal l ed 9 11 to rep o rt a s i n gl e-v eh i cl e

m o to rcy cl e cras h. Param ed i cs res po n d ed fi rs t an d as ses s ed Can el as ’ s co nd i t i o n ; h e

h ad ab ras i o n s o n h is arm an d was d azed an d co nfu s ed

. A p o l i ce o ffi cer res p o n d ed at

1 : 3 0 a.m

., al o n g wi t h a fi el d trai n i n g s u p erv is o r, an d fo u n d a m o t orcy cl e o n i t s s i de,

Can el as on t h e g ro u n d ab o u t t wen t y y ard s away

, an d a h el m et

, a s h o e an d o t h er

art i cl es o f cl o t h i n g s cat t ere d bet ween hi m an d t h e m o t o rcy cl e. Th e ro ad wh ere

Can el as h ad cras h ed was a res id en t i al ro ad

, o n a st rai g ht s ect i o n on e-t en t h m i l e p as t

a 90 -d eg ree t u rn

. Th e c u r b n ear t h e m o to rcy cl e had b een recen t l y s crap ed an d

g o u g ed

. Th ere was v om it

, wh i ch s m el l ed o f al co h o l

, i n Can el as ’ s h el m et an d o n h i s

b eard an d jack et

. As p aram ed i cs p rep ar e d t o t r an s p o rt Can el as to t h e h o s p i t al

, h e

s t at ed t hat h e h ad b een at a f r i e n d ’s h o us e, wh ere h e d ran k “ a co u p l e o f beers .” He

t o l d t h e offi cer t h at h e di d n o t rem em b er leav i n g h i s fri en d ’ s h o u s e an d d i d n o t k n o w

1 See Ja cks o n v. Vi r

g i n i a

, 4 4 3 U

. S. 30 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 81

, 61 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

Th i s reci tat i o n o f fact s i s b as ed i n p art o n t h e ev id en ce wh i ch Can el as co n ten d s t h e

t ri al co urt erro neo u s l y ad m i t ted

. W e h av e reject ed h i s ev id en t iary ch al len g es fo r t h e

reas on s d i s cu s s ed i n Di v i s i o n 2 an d 3 , i n fra.

2h o w he g ot t o th e s cen e o f t h e cras h b ecau s e h e wo u l d n o t h av e l eft hi s fri en d ’ s h o u s e

aft er d ri n k i n g

.

Th e o ffi cer fo l l o wed th e am b u l an ce to t h e h o s p it al an d s p o k e wi t h Can el as in

h i s t reat m en t ro o m

. Th e o ffi cer’ s t rai n i ng s u perv i s o r was al s o p res en t

. Th e arres t i n g

o ffi cer n o t iced t h at Can el as h ad b l o o d s h o t ey es an d a s t ro n g o d or o f al co h o l ab o u t h i s

p ers o n

. A s ked i f h e h ad h ad an y t h in g t o d ri n k , Can el as ag ai n res p o nd ed t h e h e h ad

d ru n k “ a co u p l e o f b eers

. ” T h e o ffi cer v erb al l y t o l d h im

, “ Yo u are u n der arres t fo r

DUI-l es s s afe,” an d read t h e i m p l i ed co n s en t n o t i ce, co n cl u d i n g wi t h a req u es t t h at

h e s u b m i t t o a s t at e ad m i n i s t ered ch em i cal t es t o f h i s b l o o d as p ro v id ed i n t h e i m p l i ed

co n sen t l aw. T h e offi cer t es t i fi ed t h at h e d i d n o t p u t Can el as i n h an dcu ffs b ecau s e h e

was o n t h e g urn ey an d n u rs es w ere p u t t i n g IVs i n h is arm an d t reat i n g th e b ru i s i n g

an d ab ras i o n s on h i s arm

, an d h e d i d n ot wan t to i n t erfere wi t h t h e m ed i cal t reat m en t

.

Can el as g av e h i s co n s en t t o t h e b l o o d t e s t

, a n d a t 2 : 4 6 a.m

. an ER n urs e d rew h i s

b l o o d fo r t es t i n g

. Th e o ffi cer l eft Can el as

, wh o was st i l l recei v i n g m ed i cal t reat m en t

,

i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e h o s p i t al s ecu ri t y st aff an d wen t to th e po l i ce s t at i o n wi t h t h e

ev i d en ce. W i t h i n t he ho u r, t he o ffi cer so u gh t an d ob t ai n ed an arres t warran t

. Fo r

reas on s no t ap p aren t i n t h e reco rd

, an o t h er o ffi cer serv ed t h e warran t a few day s l at er.

Th e res u lt o f t h e b l oo d al co h o l t es t was a l ev el o f 0

. 1 5 3 g ram s p er 1 0 0 m l.

31

. Can el as ch a l l e n g e s t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t he ev i d en ce as t o each o ffen s e. On

ap p eal fro m

a cri m i n al co n v i ct i o n , t h e ap p el l at e co u rt

v i ew[s ] t h e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o th e v erd ict [,] an d an

ap p el l an t n o l o ng er en

jo y s t h e p res u m

p t i o n o f i n no cen ce. [Th e ap p el l at e

co u rt ] d et erm i n es wh et h er t h e ev i d en ce i s s u ffi ci en t u n der t h e s t an dard

o f Ja cks o n v. Vi r

g in i a

, 4 4 3 U. S. 3 0 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 L E 2 d 5 6 0 )

(1 9 7 9 ), an d do es n o t wei g h t h e ev i d en ce o r d et erm i n e wi t n es s

cred ib i l i t y . An y

co n fl i ct s o r i n co n s i s t en ci es i n t h e ev id en ce are fo r t he

ju ry t o res o lv e. As l o n g as t h ere is s o m e co m p et en t ev i den ce, ev en

t h o u g h co n t rad i ct ed

, t o s u p p o rt each fact n eces s ary t o m ak e o u t th e

St at e’ s cas e, [t h e ap p el l at e co u rt ] m u st u p h o l d t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

.

(Ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed .) Ra n ki n v. S t a t e , 2 7 8 Ga. 7 0 4 , 7 0 5 (6 06 SE2 d 2 6 9 ) (2 0 0 4 ).

(a) As a t h res h o l d m at t er, we ad d res s t h e St at e’ s co nt en t i o n t h at Can el as fai l ed

t o p res erv e t h i s i s s u e. Sp eci fi cal l y

, t h e St at e arg u es t h at h e “ ret ract ed ” t h e i s s u e o f t h e

s u ffi ci en cy o f t he ev i d en ce b y ch al l en g i n g t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e e v i d en ce i n h i s

m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al

, ev en t h o u g h he h ad t he ri g h t t o d i r e c t l y ap p eal o n th at b as i s

w i t h o u t fi rs t su b m i t ti n g t h e i s s u e t o t h e t ri al co u rt

, 2 an d t h en o p t in g t o o m i t t h e

2 OCGA § § 5 -6 -3 6 (a) (“ Th e en t ry o f ju d gm en t o n a v erd i ct b y t h e t ri al co u rt

co n st i t u t es an ad

ju d i cat i o n b y

t h e t ri al co u rt as t o t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce t o

s u s t ai n t h e v erd i ct

, affo rd i n g a b as i s fo r rev i ew o n ap p eal wi t h ou t fu rt her ru l i n g by

t h e t ri al co urt .”); 5-6 -4 0 (g ) (“ On ap p eal

, a p art y sh al l n o t b e l i m i ted t o t he g ro u nd s

u rg ed i n t h e m o t i o n [fo r n ew t ri al ] o r an y am en d m e n t t h ereo f.”); Lemb cke v. S t a t e

, 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p

. 1 1 0

, 1 1 2 (1 ) (6 2 5 SE2 d 5 05 ) (2 0 05 ) (“ In cri m i n al cas es

, . . . ch al l en g es

4t ran s cri p t o f t h e h eari n g o n hi s m ot i o n fo r a n ew t ri al fro m t h e ap p el l at e reco rd

. Th e

St at e arg ues :

Un fo rt u n at el y

, n ei t her Ap p el l ee n o r t h i s Co urt k n o ws to wh at ex t en t t h i s

i s su e was d i s c u s s ed at t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew tri al h eari n g, b ecau s e

Ap p el l an t s p eci fi cal l y ch o s e n o t t o i n cl u d e t h e t ran s cri pt o f t hat h eari n g

o n ap p eal

. Th i s Co u rt i s t h erefo re precl ud ed fro m ev al u at i n g t h e nat u re

an d ex t en t t o wh i ch Ap p el l an t arg ued t h is is s u e; t h e ex ten t to wh ich th e

t ri al co u rt reco ns i d ered i t s as s es s m e n t o f th e ev id en ce at t ri al ; an d

wh et h er o r n o t t h e t ri al co u rt m ad e an y fact u al fi nd i ng s i n co nju nct i o n

wi t h i t s ru l i ng o n t h e Am en ded M o t i o n wh i ch m ay b e s u b j e c t t o a

d i fferen t s t an d ard o f rev i ew.

Th i s a r g u m en t l ack s au t h o ri t at i v e s u p p o rt

. W het h er th e ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t ri al

was l eg al l y s u ffi ci en t i s p l ai nl y a q u es t i on o f l aw wh i c h o n ap p eal we as s es s

i n d ep en den t l y o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s a d j u d i cat i o n

, th ro u g h en t ry o f ju d g m en t

, t h at t h e

ev i d en ce was s u ffi ci en t

. 3 W h at ev er t ran s p i red at th e ev i d en t i ary h eari n g o n Can el as ’ s

m o ti o n fo r a n ew t ri al i s s i m p ly i rrel ev an t t o t h i s Co u rt ’ s co n s i d erat i o n o f wh et h er t h e

ev i d en ce p res en ted at t ri al was s u ffi ci en t u n d er t h e ap p li cab l e s t an d ard

. See Ro wa n

t o t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce n eed n o t hav e b een rai s ed b el ow, wh et h er at t ri al

o r i n a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al .”) (ci tat i o n o m it ted ).

3 Cl a r k v. S t a t e

, 2 51 Ga. Ap p

. 7 1 5

, 7 1 6 (2 ) (5 5 5 S E2 d 8 8 ) ( 2 0 0 1 ); Bu t l er v.

S t a t e , 2 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. 6 2 6 (1 ) (5 5 2 SE2 d 5 6 5 ) (2 0 01 ).

5v. St a t e

, 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 7 3

, 7 7 4 (1 ) (7 9 2 SE2 d 4 0 0 ) (2 01 6 ) (reject i ng t h e St at e’ s

s u g g es t i o n t hat

, becau se t h e ap p el l an t h ad n o t arg u ed t h e i s s ue o f t h e su ffi ci en cy o f

t h e ev i d en ce b efo re th e t ri al co u rt i n co n nect i on wi t h h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, t h e

i s su e was n o t p ro p erl y b efo re t h i s Co u rt o n ap p eal ); Th o ma s v. S t at e , 3 2 2 Ga. Ap p.

7 3 4 , 7 3 4 -7 3 5 (1 ) (7 4 6 SE2 d 2 1 6 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (acco rd ).

(b ) Can el as co nt en d s t h at t h ere was n o ev i d en ce of t h e cau s e o f h i s m o t o rcy cl e

cras h an d n o o t h e r e v i den ce t h at h i s d ri v i n g was l es s s afe. W e co n cl u de t hat

, t ak en

t o g et h er, ev i den ce t h at Can el as l o s t co n t ro l o f h i s m o to rcy cl e o n a s t rai g h t s t ret ch o f

ro ad

, co u p l ed wi th t h e ev i d en ce o f h i s b l o o d al co ho l l ev el (n earl y d o u b l e t h e l ev el

t h at s u p p o rt s a co nv i ct i o n fo r DUI, p er s e), h i s p ro fes s ed lack o f m em o ry of l eav i n g

h i s fri en d ’ s h o u s e o r d ri v in g , an d h i s ad d l ed s t at e o f m i nd au t h o ri zed t h e t ri al co u rt

t o fi nd h i m g ui l t y o f D UI, les s s afe. Jo n es v. S t a t e

, 1 87 G a

. A p p

. 1 3 2

, 1 3 2 -1 3 3 (1 )

(3 6 9 SE2 d 5 0 9 ) (1 9 8 8) (Th e ev i d en ce au t h o ri zed co n v i ct i o n o f DUI, l es s s afe, wh ere

an o ffi cer fo u n d th e d efen d an t ’ s car s t o p ped at a rai l ro ad cro s s in g w i th t h e d efen d an t

s l um p ed o v er t he s t eeri n g wh eel wi t h t h e en g i n e s t i l l ru n ni n g an d t h e t ran s m i s s i o n in

“ d ri v e,” t h e d efen d an t fel l g et t in g o u t o f h i s car an d was u n s t ead y o n h i s feet

, an d t h e

d efen d an t ’ s ey es were b l o o d s h o t

, h i s s p eech was s l u rred , an d t h ere was t h e o d o r o f

al co h o l ab o u t h i m .); B l a ckwel l v. S ta t e

, 1 80 G a. A p p

. 2 5 3, 2 5 4 (3 4 9 SE2 d 1 3 ) (1 9 8 6 )

6(Th e ev id en ce au t ho ri zed co n v i ct io n o f DUI, les s s a f e

, w h e r e t h e defen d an t was

i n v o l v ed i n an acci d en t an d an o ffi cer o b serv ed t h at h i s b reat h an d p ers o n s m el l ed o f

al co h o l , h i s ey es were b l o od s h o t an d h e was u n s t ead y o n h i s feet .). 4

(c) Can el as co n ten d s t h at t h ere was no ev i d en ce t h at he was dri v i n g wi t h in

t h ree h o urs b efo re t h e ch em ical t es t t h at s h owed h e h ad a b lo o d al co h o l co n cen t rat i o n

o f 0.1 5 3 gram s p er m l

. 5 Can el as ’ s b l o o d w as d rawn at 2 : 4 6 p

. m

. Th e arres ti n g o ffi cer

t es t i fi ed t h at h e arri ved at t he s cen e at 1 : 3 0 a.m

. wh i l e Can el as was b ei n g ev al u at ed

an d t reat ed b y p aram ed i cs

. Th e ev i d en ce s u p p o rt ed an i n feren ce t h at Can el as was

d ri v i ng

, an d cras h ed h i s m o t o rcy cl e, wi t h i n t h ree h o u rs befo re h i s bl o o d was d rawn

.

S mi th v. St a t e

, 3 25 Ga. Ap p

. 4 05

, 4 0 7 (7 5 0 SE2 d 7 5 8 ) (2 0 1 3 ); St at e v. Ga g g i n i

, 3 2 1

4 Cf. Al l en v. S t a t e

, 2 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. 24 6

, 2 4 7 (1 ) (5 70 SE2 d 6 83 ) (2 0 0 2 )

(rev ers in g co n v i ct i o n wh ere t h e t ro o p er fai l ed t o s u p p o rt h i s o p i n i o n t h at t h e

d efen d an t was a l es s s afe d ri v er wi t h an y fact s o r ob s e r v a t io n s o f t h e d efen d an t ’ s

ap p ear a nce or co nd u ct t h at h e u s ed t o reach h i s co n cl u s io n

, no t in g t h e ab s en ce o f

ev i d en ce t h at t he d efen d an t ’ s s p eech was s lu rred

, th at he s m el l ed of al co h o l

, t h at h i s

ey es w e re red o r gl as s y

, t h at h e was u n st ead y o n h i s feet

, t h at h i s co n d u ct was

u n u s ual o r errat i c, or th at he p erfo rm ed p o o rl y o n fi el d s o b ri et y t es t s

, d es p i t e t h e

d efen d an t ’ s i nv o l v em en t in a s i n g l e-v eh icl e acci d en t an d ev i d en ce t hat s h owed t h at

t h e d efen d an t h ad co ns u m ed al co h o l i c b ev erag es ).

5 O CGA § 4 0 -6 -3 9 1 (a) ( 5 ) m a k e s i t i l leg al fo r s om eo n e to “ d ri v e o r b e in

act u a l p h y s i cal co nt ro l o f an y m o v i n g v eh i cl e wh i le

. . . [t ] h e p ers o n’ s al co h ol

co n cen t rat io n is 0 .0 8 g ram s o r m o re at an y t i m e wi t h i n t h ree h ou rs aft er s u ch d ri v i n g

o r b ei n g i n act u al ph y s i cal co n t ro l fro m a l c o ho l co n s um ed b efo re s u ch d ri v i n g o r

b ei n g i n act u al p h y s i cal co n t ro l en d ed .”

7Ga. A p p. 3 1, 36 (2 ) (7 4 0 SE2 d 8 4 5 ) (2 0 1 3 ); Lee v. S ta t e

, 2 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 8

, 1 2 9 -1 3 0

(2 ) (5 11 SE2 d 2 38 ) (1 9 9 9 ).

(d ) Can el as co n t en d s t h at t h ere was in s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t h at h e l ack ed a v al id

d ri v er’ s l i cen s e. Th e St at e co n ced es t h at th e ev i den ce at tri al

, wh i ch co n si st ed o f t h e

arres t i n g o ffi cer’ s t es t i m o ny t h at h e ran Can el as ’ s d r i v e r ’ s li cen s e t hro u g h a

v eri fi cat i o n pro g ram on a co m p u t er i n h i s s q u ad car an d he “ b el iev e[d ] ” i t cam e b ack

as a v al i d l i cen s e b u t h e d i d n o t n o ti ce t h e “ M ” d es i g n at i o n fo r a m o t o rcy cl e

q u al i fi cat i o n

, was i ns u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt a co n v i ct i on fo r v i o l at i ng OCGA § 4 0 -5 -2 0

(a). 6 Acco rd i ng l y

, Can el as ’ s co n v i ct i o n fo r t hi s o ffen s e i s rev ers ed

.

2 . Can el as co n t en d s g en eral l y t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y i ng h i s m o t i o n

t o s u p p res s b ecau s e t here was n o t p ro b ab l e cau s e t o arres t h i m fo r DUI.

[W ] h en a co u rt co n si d ers wh et h er an o ffi cer h ad p ro b ab l e cau s e t o arres t

a su s p ect

, t h e c o u r t m

u s t fo cu s o n t h e fact s an d ci rcu m s t an ces t h en

k n o wn t o t h e of

f i cer, an d i t m

u s t i nq u i re wh et h er t h o s e fact s an d

ci rcu m s t an ces co u l d lead a p ru d en t pers o n

– t hat i s

, a reas o n ab le o ffi cer

6 See W i l l ia ms v. S t at e

, 3 3 6 Ga. A p p

. 4 4 2

, 4 4 9 (4 ) (a) (7 84 SE2 d 80 8 ) (2 0 1 6 )

(W here a p o l i ce o ffi cer t es t i fi ed at t ri al t h at h e en tered a s us p ect ’ s d ri ver’ s l i c e n s e

i n fo rm at i o n i n to a co m

p ut er d at ab as e an d fo u n d th at h i s “ p ri v i l eg e in Geo rg i a was n ot

v al i d ,” wh ere t h ere was n o d o cu m en t ary ev id en ce s u p p ort i n g t h e o ffi cer’ s cl ai m an d

n o t es t i m o n y

was ad d u ced reg ard i ng h o w o r fo r wh at reas o n t h e d ri v er’ s p ri v i l eg es

p u rp ort ed l y w ere s u sp en d ed

, t h e ev i d en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t t o s u pp o rt a co n vi ct i o n fo r

d ri v i ng wi t h a s u s pen d ed l i cen s e.).

8–

t o co n cl u d e t h at t h e s u s p ect p ro b ab l y has co m m i t t ed an o ffen s e. Th e

fact s an d ci rc u m s t a n ces k n o wn to t h e o ffi cer m u s t b e ex am i n ed

al t o g et h er, fo r i t is t h e t o t al i t y o f t h o s e fact s an d ci rcu m s t an ces t hat

m at t ers , n o t an y

o n e fact o r ci rcu m s tan ce s tan d i n g al o n e.

(Ci t at i o n s om i tt ed ; em

p h as i s i n o ri g i n al .) H

u g h es v. S ta t e

, 2 96 Ga. 74 4

, 7 48 -7 4 9 (2 )

(7 7 0 SE2 d 6 3 6 ) (2 0 1 5 ).

A n d wh ere t h e t o t al i t y o f t h e fact s an d ci rcu m s t an ces kn o wn t o a n

o ffi cer wo u l d p erm i t reas o n ab l e o ffi cers t o d raw d i fferi n g co n cl u s i o n s

ab o u t wh e t h e r t h e s u s pect p ro b ab l y h as co m m i t t ed a cri m e, p ro b ab l e

cau s e ex i s t s

, an d i t i s fo r t h e o ffi cer

– n o t ju d g es

, t ri al or ap p el l at e

– t o

d eci de wh i ch o f t h e s ev eral reas o n ab l e co n cl u s i o n s t o d raw.

(Ci t at i o n s om i t t ed .) Id

. at 7 4 9

. “ If r e a s o nab l e offi cers co ul d h av e reach ed d i fferen t

co n cl u s i o n s

– s o m e co nc l u ding r e as o n ab l y t h at [t h e d ri v er] p ro bab l y h ad b een d ri v i n g

u n d er t h e i n fl u en ce, an d o t h ers reas o n ab ly co n cl u d i ng o t h erwi s e

– t hen p ro b ab l e

cau s e b y d efi n it i on was es tab l i s h ed .” (C i t a t i o n s o m i t ted .) Id

. at 75 2 (2 ). “ Th e

ex i s t en ce o f p ro bab l e cau s e i s a l eg al qu es t io n as t o wh i ch t h e ap p el lat e co u rt s o we

n o d eferen ce t o t ri al ju d g es .” Id . at 7 52 (2 ).

Can el as co n t en d s t h at t h e fact s an d ci rcu m s t an ces k n o wn t o th e o f f i c er, as

fo u n d by t h e t ri al co u rt

– t h at he wreck ed h i s m o t o rcy cl e an d was i n ju red ; t h at h e was

fo u n d wi t h v o m i t o n hi s cl o t h i n g an d i n hi s h el m et ; t h at h e h ad b l o od s ho t ey es ; t h at

9h e sm el l ed s t ro n g l y o f al co ho l i c b e v erag es an d ad m i t t ed h av i n g co n su m ed al co h ol

– am o u n t n ei t h er t o m an i fes t at i o n s of u n s afe dri v i n g n o r p hy s i cal m an i fes t at i o n s o f

i n t o x i cat io n

. He ci t es t o cas es i n wh i ch we hav e affi rm ed an o rd er g ran t i n g a m o t i o n

t o su p p res s wh ere t h e ev i d en ce s h o wed co n s u m p t i on o f al co h o l b u t d i d n o t s h o w t h e

effect o f t h at co n s u m

pt i o n o n t h e d efen dan t

, t h at i s

, t h at h e was u nd er t h e i n fl u en ce

o f al co h o l t o a d eg ree wh i ch ren d ered h i m i n cap ab l e o f d ri v i n g s afel y

. 7

7 St a t e v. En ci na s

, 30 2 Ga. Ap p

. 3 3 4

, 3 3 6 -3 3 7 (6 9 1 SE2 d 2 5 7 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (An

o ffi cer d i d n ot h av e p ro bab l e cau s e t o arres t a dri v er fo r DUI, ev en t h o u g h t h e d ri v er

ex u ded t h e od o r o f al co h o l

, h ad b l o o ds h ot ey es

, an d refu s ed t o t ak e a

s t at e-ad m i n i s t ered ch em i cal t es t

, wh ere t h e d ri v er s h o wed n o s i gn s o f b ei n g im p ai red

, h e was n o t d ri v in g errat i cal ly

, an d t h e o ffi cer d id n ot fo l lo w al l req u i red p ro ced u res

i n p erfo rm in g t he h o ri zo n t al g aze n y s t ag m u s t es t .), di s ap p ro v ed o f b y Hu g h es v.

S t a t e

, 2 96 G a. at 7 5 2 (2 ); St at e v. Da m a t o

, 30 2 Ga. Ap p

. 18 1

, 1 8 2 (2 ) (6 9 0 SE2 d 4 7 8 )

(2 0 1 0) (An o ffi cer d i d n o t h av e p ro bab l e cau se t o arres t a d ri v er fo r DUI, ev en t h o u g h

t h e d ri v er’ s b reat h s m el l ed o f al co h o l an d a b reat h t es t w as p o si t iv e fo r a l c o h o l

, b ecau s e t h e pres en ce o f al co h o l i n a d ri v er’ s b o d y d o es n o t s u p po rt an i n feren ce t h at

t h e d ri v er i s i n t o x icat ed an d i t i s l e s s s afe fo r h er t o d ri v e.); S t a t e v. Gr a y

, 2 6 7 Ga.

Ap p

. 7 5 3

, 7 5 4 -7 5 5 (1 ) (6 0 0 SE2 d 6 2 6 ) (2 00 4 ) (An offi cer d i d n o t h av e p ro b ab l e

cau s e t o arres t a d ri v er f o r D UI

, e v e n t h ou g h t h e d ri v er was i n vo l v ed i n a s i n g l e

v eh icl e acci d en t

, ex u d ed t h e od o r o f al co h o l, ad m i t t ed to d ri nk i ng

, was u n st ead y o n

h er feet

, an d h ad b l o o d s h o t e yes an d d azed ap p earan ce, an al co h ol s en so r s h o wed

p res en ce o f al co h ol i n t h e d ri v er’ s b o d y

, an d a h o ri zo n t al g aze n y s tag m u s t es t s h o wed

t wo of s i x cl u es of i n t o x i c a t i on

, wh ere t h e d ri v er s t at ed t h at an o t h er v eh i cl e h ad

fo rced h er o ff t h e ro ad cau s i ng h er t o h i t t h e co n cret e m ed i an an d h er u n s t ead i n es s

, b l o o d s h o t ey es , d azed ap p earan ce, an d HGN res u l t s co ul d h av e b een cau s ed b y t h e

i m p act an d t h e ex p l o s i o n o f ai r b ag s

, an d wh ere t h e offi cer d i d n o t fo l l o w al l req u i red

p ro ced ures i n p erfo rm i n g t h e HGN t es t .), d i s ap p ro v ed o f b y Hu g h es v. S t at e

, 2 9 6 Ga.

at 7 5 2 (2 ).

10As i n Hu g h es v. St a t e

, each of t h e ci rcu m s t an ces fo u n d b y t h e t ri al co u rt

, wh i l e

co n si s t en t wi t h d ri v i n g u n d er t he i nfl u en ce, i s al s o “ s us cep t i b l e o f r e as o n ab l e

ex p lan at i o n s o t h er t h an d ri v in g u n d er t h e i n fl u en ce” an d “ an i nn o cen t ex pl an at i o n fo r

each ci rcu m s tan ce m i g h t b e m o re p ro b ab l e.” 2 9 6 Ga. at 7 5 0 (2 ). Bu t

, as t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt em p h as i zed

, “ we d o n o t co n s i d er an y fact o r ci rcu m s t an ce s t an d i n g al o n e.” Id

.

In th i s cas e, as i n Hu gh es v

. S t a t e

, “ [t ] ak en t o g et h er, a reas o n ab le o ffi cer co u ld

co n cl u d e

. . . t h at d ri v in g u n der t h e in fl u en ce was an eq u al l y o r m o re p ro b ab l e

ex p lan at i o n fo r t h e fact s an d ci rcu m s t an ces k no wn t o th e o ffi cer[] t h an an i m p ro b ab l e

co i n ci d en ce o f m

ul ti p l e i n n o ce n t ex p l an at io n s.” Id

. at 7 4 7 -7 4 8 (2 ). See B r a n d o n v.

S t a t e

, 3 0 8 Ga. Ap p

. 2 3 9, 24 0 (7 0 6 SE2 d 7 7 2 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (An o ffi cer h ad p ro b ab l e cau s e

t o arres t a d ri v er fo r DUI wh ere t h e d ri v er was i n v o l v ed i n a s i n g l e v eh i cl e acci d en t

an d p h y s i cal ev i den ce at t h e s cen e s u g g es t ed t o th e o ffi cer t h at t h e d ri v er h ad v eered

o ff t h e ro ad

, o v erco rrect ed

, an d fl i p p ed h is v eh i cl e, an d t h e d ri ver s m el l ed o f al co h o l

,

ad m i t t ed d ri n k i n g , an d g av e a b reat h s am pl e t h at t es t ed p o si ti v e fo r al co h o l .). 8

8 See al s o Hu g h es v. St a t e

, 2 9 6 Ga. at 75 2 (2 ) (Offi cers h ad pro b ab l e cau s e to

arres t a d ri v er fo r DUI, wh ere t h e d ri v er ran a red l i g h t

, s t ru ck an o t h er car an d k i l l ed

t h e o t h er d ri v er, ap p eared s l eep y an d h ad “ g l as s y ey es wi t h s o m e red n es s ,” “ m ay h av e

b een u n s t ead y o n h i s feet ,” an d h ad so m e ti g h t l y p ack ag ed pi l l s on h i s p ers o n wh i ch

t h e o ffi cers co u l d n o t i m

m ed i at el y i d en t i fy .); S t at e v. Ca r d er

, 30 1 Ga. Ap p

. 9 0 1

, 9 0 5

(2 ) (6 8 9 SE2 d 3 4 7 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (An o ffi cer h ad pro b ab l e cau s e t o arres t a d ri v er fo r DUI

wh ere t h e dri v er was t h e o n l y p ers o n i n h er v eh i cl e at an acci den t s cen e, ad m i t t ed

113

. Can el as co nt en d s t hat t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d en y in g hi s m o t i o n to s u p p res s

ch em i cal t es t res u l ts becau s e h e was n ot p l aced u n d er act u al

, val i d arres t p ri o r t o t h e

read i n g o f t h e i m

p l i ed co n s en t n o t i ce. Sp eci fi cal l y

, h e arg u es t h at t h e fi rs t “ arres t ” by

t h e o ffi cer i n t h e h o s p i t al ro o m was a co m p l et e fal s i t y an d n o t a v al i d o r l eg al arres t

u n d er law b ecau s e h e was arres t ed p u rs u an t t o a warran t a few d ay s lat er. Becau s e h e

was n o t u n d er arres t

, an d becau s e h e h ad n ot b een i n v o lv ed i n a t raffi c acci den t t h at

res u l ted in s eri ou s i nju ri es o r fat al i t i es as d efi n ed b y l aw, h e a r g u e s

, t he i m p l i ed

co n sen t read i n g g i v en i n t h e h o s p i t al was t herefo re i n v al i d.

Un d er Geo rg i a l aw, “ a s u sp ect wh o i s no t i n vo l v ed i n a t raffi c acci d en t

res u l ti n g i n seri o u s i n

ju ri es o r fat al i ti es m

u s t b e u n d er arres t b efo re im pl i ed co n s en t

ri gh t s are read t o h im ” an d a ch em i cal t es t d em an d ed

. H o u g h v. S t a te , 2 7 9 Ga. 7 1 1,

7 1 6 (2 ) (a) (6 2 0 SE2 d 3 8 0) (2 00 5 ). 9

d ri n k i n g

, an d

, d u ri n g an i n t erv iew ho u rs lat er, h ad a l i n g eri ng s m el l o f al co h o l ab o ut

h er p ers o n

, a fl u s h ed face, an d s l u rred s p eech .); Fr ed er i ck v. S ta t e

, 2 7 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 9 7

(6 0 6 SE2 d 6 1 5) (2 0 04 ) (An o ffi cer h ad p ro bab l e cau s e t o arres t a d ri ver fo r DUI

wh ere t h e d ri v er s m el l ed s tro ng l y o f al co h o l

, ad m i t t ed t h at h e h ad b een d ri n k i n g

, an d

h ad g l o s s y ey es .); Tr o t t er v. S t a t e

, 2 56 Ga. Ap p

. 33 0

, 33 2 (1 ) (5 6 8 SE2 d 5 71 ) (2 0 0 2 )

( A n o ffi cer h ad p ro b ab l e cau s e t o arres t a dri v er fo r DUI w h ere t he d ri v e r w a s

i n v o l v ed i n an acci d en t

, s m el led o f al co h o l

, w as i n co h eren t

, an d was u n ab l e t o p as s

s o b ri et y t es t s.).

9 See OCGA §§ 40 -5 -5 5 (a) (“ [A] n y p ers o n wh o o perat es a m o t o r v eh i cl e u p o n

t h e h i g h way s o r el s ewh e r e t h r o u g h o u t th i s s tat e s hal l b e d eem ed t o h av e g i v en

12[A] n arres t i s acco m p l i s h ed wh en ev er th e li b ert y o f an o th er t o co m e an d

g o as he p l eas es i s res t rai n e d

, n o m at t er h o w s l i gh t s u ch res t rai n t m ay

b e. Th e d efen dan t m ay v o l u n t ari l y s u bm i t to b ei n g co n si d ered u nd er

ar res t wi th ou t an y act u al t o uch i n g o r s h o w o f fo rce. T h u s

, i m p l ied

co n s en t i s t ri g gered at t h e p o i n t t h at t he s u s p ect i s n o t free t o leav e an d

a reas o n ab l e p ers o n i n h i s p o s i t io n wo u l d n o t b el i ev e t h at th e d et en t i o n

i s t em p o rary , reg ard l es s o f wh et her a “ fo rm al arres t ” h as o ccu rred

.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at io n o m i tt ed .) Id

.

W h et h er a s u s p ect i s u n d er cu s t o d ial arres t is a m i x ed q ues t i o n of l aw

an d fact

. Th erefo re, t o t h e ex t en t t h at det erm in at io n o f t h e is s u e hi n g es

o n res o lu t i o n of fact u al q u es t i o n s

, an ap p el l at e co urt co n s t ru es th e

ev i d en ce m o s t fav o rab l y t o u p h o ld t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi n d in g s an d accep t

c o n s en t

, s u b

ject t o Co d e Sect i on 4 0-6 -3 9 2

, to a ch em i cal tes t o r t es t s o f h i s o r h e r

b l o o d

, b reat h

, u ri n e

, o r o t h er bo d i l y s u b s t an ces fo r t h e p urp o s e o f det erm in i n g t h e

p res en ce o f al co ho l o r an y ot h er d ru g

, i f arres ted fo r an y o ffen s e ari s in g o u t o f act s

al l eg ed t o h av e b een co m m i t t ed i n v io l at io n o f Co d e Sect i o n 40 -6 -3 9 1 or i f s u ch

p ers o n i s i n v o l v ed in an y t raffi c acci d en t res u l ti n g i n s eri o u s in j u ri es or fat al i t i es .”);

4 0 -5 -6 7

. 1 (a) (“ Th e t es t o r t es t s req u i red u n d er Co d e S e c t i o n 4 0 -5 -5 5 s h al l b e

ad m i n is t ered as s o o n as p o ss ib l e at t h e req u es t o f a l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer h av i n g

reas on ab l e g ro u n d s to bel i e v e t h at t h e pers o n h as b een dri v i n g o r was i n act u al

p h y s i cal co n t ro l o f a m o vi ng m o t o r v eh i cl e u p o n t h e h i g hway s o r el s ewh ere

t h ro u g h ou t th is s t at e in v i o l at i o n o f Co d e Sect i on 4 0 -6 -3 9 1 an d t h e o ffi cer h as

arres t ed s u ch p ers o n fo r a [DUI] v i o l at i o n .”); 4 0 -6 -3 9 2 (a) (4 ) (“ Up o n t he req u es t o f

t h e p ers o n wh o s h al l s u b m it t o a ch em ical t es t or tes t s at t h e req u es t o f a l aw

en fo r c em en t o ffi cer, fu l l i n fo rm at i o n co n cern i n g t he t es t or t es ts s hal l be m ad e

av ai l ab l e t o h i m o r h is at to rn ey

. Th e arres t i n g o ffi cer at th e t i m e o f arres t s h al l ad v i s e

t h e p ers o n arres ted o f h i s ri g h t s t o a ch em i cal t es t o r t es t s acco r d i n g t o t h i s Co d e

s ect i on .”).

13t h o s e fi n d i n g s u nl es s t h ey are cl earl y erro n eo u s ; b u t t h e ap p el l at e co u rt

i n d ep en d en t l y

ap p li es t h e l eg al p ri n ci pl es t o t h o se fact s

.

(Pu n ct u at i on an d fo o t n o t es o m i t t ed .) Pl emmo n s v. S t a t e

, 3 2 6 Ga. Ap p

. 7 6 5, 7 6 8 (1 )

(7 5 5 SE2 d 2 0 5 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

Co n st ru i n g t he ev id en ce i n fav o r o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fi nd i n g s

, we co n cl u d e t h at

,

ev en if Can el as was al l o wed t o l eav e t h e h o s p it al l at er, t h e ev i den ce au t h o ri zed t h e

t ri al co u rt t o fi n d t h a t a t t h e t i me t h e o f f i cer r ea d t h e i mp l i ed co ns en t n ot i ce t o h i m

a reas o n ab l e p ers o n i n h i s p o s i t i o n w o u l d h av e bel i ev ed t h at he was un d er arres t

.

Pl emmo n s v. S t a t e

, 3 2 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 6 8 (1 ) (Th e t ri al co u rt was au t h o ri zed t o fi n d

t h at a reas o n ab l e p ers o n i n t h e d efen d an t ’ s p o s i t i o n wo u l d no t t h i nk t h at h e was free

t o l eav e at t h e t i m e an o ffi cer read t h e im pl ied co n s e n t w a r n i n g s wh ere t h e o ffi cer,

i n t h e s u s p ect ’ s h o s p i t a l r o o m aft er an acci d en t

, wro t e a t i ck et fo r D UI, t o l d t h e

s u s p ect t h at h e was u n d er cu s t o d i al arres t

, g av e h i m t h e ti ck et

, an d t h en read h i m t h e

i m p l i ed co n s en t n o ti ce.) 1 0

1 0 See al s o Cl a

y v. S t at e

, 2 9 0 Ga. 82 2

, 8 2 5 (1 ) (A) (1 ) (7 2 5 SE2 d 2 6 0 ) (2 0 1 2 )

(Th e tri al co u rt was au t h o ri zed t o fi n d t h at

, u n d er t h e t o t al i t y o f t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

,

a reas o nab le p ers o n i n t h e d efen d an t ’ s po s i t i on wo ul d h av e percei v ed t h at h e was in

cu s t o d y at t h e t i m e h e m ad e a s t at em en t

, wh ere h e awo k e t o fi nd a p o l i ce o ffi cer in

h i s t reat m en t ro o m an d t h e offi cer av o i d ed h i s qu es t io n s reg ard i n g w h e t h e r h e was

g o i n g t o b e ch arg ed

, t o l d hi m t h at h e “ n eed ed ” t o co m e d o wn t o t h e po l ice s t at i o n to

t al k wi t h t h e p o l ice, n ev er t o l d h i m t h at h e was n ot u n d er arres t o r t h at h e was free to

144

. Las t l y

, t h e t r i a l co u rt i m p o s ed a sen t en ce o f t wel ve m o n th s p ro b at i o n fo r

each co un t o f t h e accu s at i o n

, t o b e s erv ed co n cu rren t ly

. Becau s e t h e DUI co n v i ct i on s

were p red i cat ed o n th e s am e co n d u ct

, t h ey m erg ed

, an d t h e t r i al co u rt erred in

i m p o s i n g s en t en ce o n b o t h

, as co nced ed b y t h e St at e. S mi th v. S t a t e

, 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p.

6 3 5

, 6 4 0 -6 4 1 (5 ) (7 91 SE2 d 4 1 8 ) (2 0 1 6 ); F o wl er v. S t a te

, 2 9 4 Ga. A pp

. 8 6 4

, 8 6 8 -8 6 9

(3 ) (6 7 0 SE2 d 44 8 ) (2 0 0 8 ); S ch l a n ger v. S t a te

, 2 9 0 G a. Ap p

. 40 7

, 4 1 5 (8 ) (6 5 9 SE2 d

8 2 3 ) (2 00 8 ) (p hy s ical p reced en t o n ly ); Pa r t r i d g e v. S t a t e

, 2 6 6 Ga. A p p

. 3 0 5

, 30 6 (5 9 6

SE2 d 7 7 8) (2 0 0 4). A cco rd i n g l y

, we m u st v acat e Can el as ’ s s en t en ce an d rem an d t h i s

cas e t o t h e t ri al co u rt fo r res en t en ci n g i n acco rd an ce wi t h t h i s o p in i o n

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r med i n p ar t

, r ever s ed i n p a rt

, an d va ca t ed i n p a rt

, a n d ca s e

r ema n d ed . Bet h el

, J., a n d S en i o r Ap p el l a t e Ju d

ge Her b er t E. Ph i

p p s , co n cu r

.

l eav e, an d cal l ed fo r a pat ro l veh i cl e t o tran s po rt h i m t o t h e p ol i ce s t at i o n .); Hu g h es

v. S t a t e

, 2 5 9 Ga. 2 2 7

, 2 2 8 (1 ) (3 7 8 SE2 d 8 5 3 ) (1 9 8 9 ) (Th e t ri al co u rt was au t h o ri zed

t o fi nd th at a t raffi c s to p es cal at ed t o an arres t wh en t h e o ffi cer, wh o was wai t i n g fo r

as s i s tan ce fro m

o th er o ffi cers , t o l d t h e d ri v er t h at h e was n o t free t o l eav e.).

15