In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Ma rc h 1 6 , 2 0 15

S 1 4 G0 6 2 2 . HUGHES v . THE S TATE.

B L ACKW EL L , Ju stic e

.

Un d e r OCGA § 4 0 -5 -5 5 (a ), a la w e n fo rc e m e n t o f f i c e r m a y in sist th a t a

d riv e r in v o lv e d in a tra ffic a c c id e n t re su ltin g in se ri o u s in ju rie s o r fa ta litie s

su b m it to a te st o f h is blo o d fo r th e p re se nc e o f a lc o h o l a nd dru g s, so lo n g a s th e

o ffic e r h a s p ro ba

b le c a use to b e lie v e th a t th e d riv e r wa s d riv in g u n d e r t h e

in flu e n c e o f a lc o h o l o r d r u g s

. 1 Ho ug h v

. S ta te

, 2 7 9 Ga

. 7 1 1

, 7 13 (1 ) (a ) (6 2 0

1 In relevant part, the statute provides: [ A]ny p erson who o perates a m otor v ehicle u p o n the highway s or elsewhere throughout this state s hall be deem ed t o have given c o nsent

. . . t o a chem ical

test or tests of h i s or her blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substances f or the

purpose of determ ining the presence of alcohol or any other drug

. . . if such

person is involved in any traf f ic accident resulting i n serious injuries or f atalities.
OCGA § 4 0

- 5

- 5 5 ( a )

. The statute itself say s nothing a b out probable cause. This Court has held, however, that requiring a driver involved in an accident resulting in serious injuries or f atalities t o subm i t to such tests in the absence of probable cause would s ubject the driver to

an unreasonable search and s eizure, at least i n som e c a ses. See C ooper v. State, 277 Ga. 282,
291 (V) (587 SE2d 605) ( 2003) (“[ T]o the extent that OCGA § 40-5-55 ( a) requires chem ical testing of the operator o f a m otor vehicle involved in a traf f ic a ccident resulting in serious injuries or f

atalities regardless of any determ ination o f p r o b a b le cause, i t a uthorizes
unreasonable searches and seizures i n violation of the St a t e a n d Federal Constitutions.”). Accordingly

, we h ave c onstrued t he statute to require probable cause. See Hough v. State,S E2 d 3 8 0 ) (2 0 0 5 ). F o llo win g a fa ta l a c c id e n t in Ju n e 2 0 1 1

, offic e rs in siste d th a t

Ja c k H u g h e s — th e d riv e r o f a v e h ic le in v o lv e d in th a t a c c id e nt — su b m it to a

b lo o d te st. Hu gh e s did so , b u t h e la te r wa s in d ic te d fo r se ve ra l c rim e s in

c o n n e c tio n w ith th e a c c id e n t, 2 a n d h e th e n m ov e d to su p pre ss th e re su lts o f th e

b lo o d te st, a sse rtin g th a t th e o ffic e rs we re with o u t p ro b a b le c a u se to b e lie v e th a t

h e h a d b e e n d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e

. Th e tria l c o u rt g ra n te d h is m otio n , a n d

th e S ta te a

p p e a le d

. In S ta te v

. Hu gh e s, 3 2 5 Ga

. A p p

. 4 2 9 (7 5 0 S E2 d 7 8 9 )

(2 0 1 3 ), th e Co urt of A p p e a l s r e v e rse d

, a lth o u g h th re e o f its ju dg e s d isse n te d

.

We i s s u e d a writ o f c e rtio ra ri to re v ie w th e d e c isio n o f th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls,

a n d a lth ou g h we fin d th a t th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls a p p lie d th e wro ng sta n d a rd o f

re v ie w, we c o n c lu d e th a t it n e v e rth e le ss re a c he d th e rig h t re su lt. Ac c o rd in gly

,

we a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls.

279 Ga. 711, 713-714 (1) (a) (620 SE2d 380) (2005) ( “ [ W] h e re an individual has been
involved in a traf

f ic accident resulting in serious injuries or f a t alities and the investigating
law enf orcem ent of

f icer has probable cause to believe t hat the individual w as driving under
the inf luence of alcohol or other drugs, t he constitutional inf irm ities at play in C ooper are no longer p resent, a nd the e nsuing search is both warranted and constitutional.” (Em phasis in original)).

2 More specif

ically

, Hughes was charged by indictm ent with f i ve c ounts of vehicular
hom icide in the f

irst degree, f

our p rem ised o n allegations that Hughes was driving under the
inf luence of alcohol or v a rious drugs, and one prem ised o n an allegation that he was driving recklessly

. Hughes also was c harged with three violations o f t he G eorgia C ontrolled
Substances Act.

21

. We sta rt with th e sta n d a rd o f re v ie w. As th e tria l c ou rt c o nsid e re d th e

m o tio n to su p pre ss, it h e a rd fro m th re e la w e nfo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs, e a c h o f wh o m

te stifie d a b o u t th e th in gs h e sa w a n d h e ard a t th e sc e n e o f th e a c c i d e n t, th in g s

th a t e v e n tu a lly l e d t h e o ffic e rs to in sist th a t Hu g h e s su b m it to a b lo o d te st.

Hu g he s p re se n te d n o e v id e n c e o f h is o wn a t th e e vid e n tia ry h e a rin g , a lth o u g h

h is la wy e rs d id su b

je c t th e o ffic e rs to c ro ss-e x a m in a tio n

. In its o r d e r g ra n tin g

th e m o tio n to su pp re ss, th e tria l c o u rt e x p re ssly m a d e fin d in g s a b o u t m a n y

—

b u t no t a ll
— o f th e fa c ts to wh ic h th e o ffic e rs h a d te stifie d

. By th e se fin d in g s,

th e tria l c o u rt a c c e p te d se v e ra l fa c ts to wh ic h th e o ffic e rs h a d te stifie d

, in c lu d in g

th a t th e y o b se rv e d a t th e sc e n e o f th e a c c id e n t th a t Hu g h e s se e m e d dro w sy , th a t

h e m a y h a v e b e e n u n ste a d y o n h is fe e t, th a t h is e y e s we re re d an d g la ssy , a n d

th a t h e h a d a nu m

b e r of p ill s o n h i s p e rso n

. T h e tria l c ou rt d id n ot e x p re ssly

re je c t a n y fa c t to wh ic h th e o ffic e rs h a d te st i f i e d

, a n d th e tria l c ou rt m a d e n o

e x p lic it fin d in g s a

b o u t th e ir c re d ib ility

. Ne v e rth e le ss, th e re we re fa c ts to wh ic h

th e o ffic e rs h a d te stifie d a b o u t wh ic h th e tria l c o u rt sa id n o th in g a t a ll. F o r

in sta n c e , o n e offic e r te stifie d th a t Hu gh e s h a d d ila te d p u p ils, b ut th e tria l c o urt

d id n o t m e n tio n d ila tio n in its o rd e r. Lik e wise

, on e o ffic e r te stifie d th a t Hu g he s

3wa s h e sita n t in re sp o n s e to q u e stio n s fro m th e o ffic e rs, b u t th e tria l c o u rt sa id

n o th in g in its o rd e r a

bo u t h e sita tio n o r e v a siv e ne ss.

On a p p e a l, a m a

jo rity o f th e Co u rt of A p p e a ls d e c lin e d to lim it its a n a ly sis

to th e fa c ts e xp re ssly fo u n d by th e tria l c o u rt, a n d th e m a jo rity u n d e rto o k in ste a d

to d e c id e fo r itse lf wh a t a d d itio n a l fa c ts m ig h t b e g le a n e d fro m th e e v id e n tia ry

re c o rd

. S e e H u g h e s, 3 2 5 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 43 0 -4 3 1. T he m a jo rity d id so , it e x p la in e d

,

b e c a u se th e te stim o n y o f th e o ffic e rs a b o u t su c h a d d itio na l fa c ts w a s n o t

d isp u te d b y a

n y a ffirm a tiv e e v id e n c e to th e c on tra ry , a nd th e tria l c o u rt h a d n o t

e x p lic itly re

je c te d th o se a dd itio n a l fa c ts. S e e id

. a t 4 3 2

. Th e m a jo rity a d m itte d

th a t th e tri a l c o u r t wo u ld h a v e b e e n e n title d to re je c t th e te stim o n y o f th e

o ffic e rs o n c re d ib ility g ro u n ds, e ve n in th e a bse n c e o f o th e r e v id e n c e

c o n tra d ic tin g th e ir te stim o n y , b u t th e m a jo rity n o te d th a t th e tria l c o urt ha d sa id

n o th in g in its o rd e r a

b o u t c re d ib ility

. S e e id

. In se p a ra te d isse n ts, Ju dg e Mille r

a n d Pre sid in g Ju d ge Ba rn e s a rg u e d th a t th e m a jo r ity h a d n o t b e e n d e fe re n tia l

e n o u g h to th e pre ro g a tiv e of th e tria l c o u rt to fin d th e d isp u te d fa c ts o n a m o tio n

4to su p p re ss. 3 S e e id

. a t 4 34 -4 3 5 (Mille r, J., d isse n tin g ); id

. a t 4 3 9 (Ba rn e s, P .J.,

d isse ntin g ). Ab o u t th e sta n d a rd o f re v ie w, th e d isse n tin g ju d g e s we re rig h t.

Wh e n th e fa c ts m a te ria l to a m o tio n to su pp re ss are disp u te d

, it g e n e ra lly

is fo r th e tria l ju d g e to re so lv e th o se disp u te s a nd d e te rm in e th e m a te ria l fa c ts.

S e e Ta te v

. S ta te

, 2 6 4 Ga

. 5 3, 5 4 (1 ) (4 4 0 S E 2 d 6 46 ) (1 9 94 ) (“ [W] h e n a m o tio n

to su p pre ss is he a rd b y th e tria l ju d g e , th a t ju d g e sits a s th e trie r o f fa c ts.” ). Th is

p rin c ip le is a se ttle d o n e , a n d th is Co u rt h a s id e n tifie d th re e c o ro lla rie s o f th e

p rin c ip le

, w h ic h lim it th e sc o p e o f re v ie w in a p p e a ls fro m a g ra n t o r d e n ia l o f

a m o tio n to su p p re ss in wh ic h th e tria l c o u r t h a s m a d e e x pre ss fin d in g s o f

d isp u te d fa c ts

. 4 F i rst, a n a p p e lla te c o u rt g e n e ra lly m u st a c c e p t th o se fin d in g s

3 Presiding Judge Barnes joined the dissent of Judge M i l ler, and P residing Judge Doy le joined both of

their dissents.

4 These corollaries a

pply to the e x t e n t t hat the m aterial f acts are d isputed. In som e

cases, som e or all of the m aterial f acts m ay be undisputed, as where the def e n dant concedes

a f act unhelpf

ul t o his cause in his m otion to suppress, w h e r e t h e S t ate adm its a f act

u n h e lpf ul to its c ase in c onnection with the m otion, o r where the State and d e f e n d a n t expressly stipulate to a f

act. In such cases, a n appellate court properly m ay take notice of the undisputed f

acts — even if t he trial court did not — without interf ering with t he prerogative
of the trial court to resolve d isputes of m aterial f act. Cf

. Barrett v. State, 289 Ga. 197, 200 (1) ( 709 SE2d 816) ( 2011) (“In this Court’s review of a trial court’s grant o r denial of a

m otion to suppress, the trial court’s f indings on disputed f

acts will be upheld unless clearly

erroneous, and its application of the l aw to undisputed f acts is subject to de novo review.” (Citation om itted)).

5u n l e ss th e y a re c le a rly e rro ne o u s. 5 Ha rg is v

. S ta te

, 2 9 4 Ga

. 8 1 8

, 8 23 n

. 1 2 ( 2 )

(7 5 6 S E2 d 5 2 9 ) (2 01 4 ). Se c o n d

, an a p p e lla te c o u rt m

u st c on stru e th e

e v id e n tia ry re c o rd in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e fa c t u a l fin d in g s a n d

ju d g m e n t o f th e t r i a l c o u rt. Bro wn v

. S ta te

, 2 93 G a

. 7 8 7

, 80 3 (3 ) (b ) (2 ) (7 5 0

S E2 d 1 4 8 ) (2 0 1 3 ). An d th ird

, a n a p p e lla te c ou r t g e n e ra lly m u st lim it its

c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e d isp u te d fa c ts to th o se e x p re ssly fo un d b y th e tria l c o u rt. 6

S e e Mille r v

. S ta te

, 2 88 Ga

. 2 8 6

, 2 8 7 (1 ) (7 02 S E2 d 8 88 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (“ [W] e m u st

fo c u s o n th e fa c ts fo u n d by th e tria l c o urt in its o rd e r , a s th e tria l c ou rt sits a s th e

trie r o f fa c t.” (Em

ph a sis in o rig in a l)).

Th e a p p r o a c h e m

plo y e d in th is c a se b y th e m a jo rity o f th e Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls is in c o n siste nt with th e se c o n d a n d th ird c oro lla r i e s

. Alth o u g h th e

m a jo rity a c c e p te d th e e x p re ss fin d in gs o f th e tria l c o u rt, it su p p le m e n te d th ose

fin d in g s with a d d itio n a l fi n d i n g s o f its o wn , a n d a s it se arc h e d th e re c o rd fo r

5 W e have held t hat l ess def erence to the t rial court i s owed to the e xtent t hat m aterial
f a c t s def initively can be ascertained exclusively by ref erence to evidence that is
uncontradicted and presents no questions of c redibility

. See, e.g., V ergara v. State, 283 Ga. 175, 178 (1) (657 SE2d 863) (2008) (to t he extent that m aterial f a cts could b e discerned by appellate court f

rom video recording, no def

erence to f

indings of trial court was required).

6 If the trial court has m ade express f indings of f

act, but not with suf

f icient detail to

perm it m eaningf

ul a ppellate review, an appellate court m a y rem and f or f urther f indings. See,

e.g., Bry ant v. State, 268 Ga. 664, 666-667 (6) ( 492 SE2d 868) (1997) (in context of m otion

to suppress statem ent, d iscussing im portance o f f

indings of f

act and possibility of rem and).

6a d d itio n a l fa c ts to fin d

, th e m a jo rity fa ile d to v ie w th e re c o rd in th e lig h t m o st

fa v o ra ble to th e f

in d in g s a n d ju d g m e n t of th e tria l c o u rt. F o r in sta n c e , th e

m a jo rity fo u n d th a t Hu gh e s h a d d ila te d p u p ils an d wa s e v a siv e in h is re sp o n se s

to q u e stio n s fro m t h e o ffic e rs, e v e n th o u g h th e tria l c o u rt sa id n o th in g a b o u t

su c h th in g s in its o rd e r. Se e Hu g h e s, 3 2 5 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 4 3 0

. We d o n o t k n o w

—

a n d th e m a

jo rity o f th e Co u rt o f Ap pe a ls c o uld no t h a v e k no w n — e xa c tly w h y

th e tria l c o u rt sa id no th in g a b o u t th e se t h i n g s. B u t we d o k n o w th a t th e tria l

c o u rt c ou ld h a v e a ssig n e d n o we ig h t a t a ll to th e te stim on y o f th e offic e rs a b o u t

th e se th in g s to th e e xte n t th a t it fo u n d th a t th e ir te stim on y wa s no t c re d ib le

. 7 S e e

Ta te

, 2 6 4 Ga

. a t 5 6 (3 ) (“ Cre d ib ility o f witn e sse s a n d th e we ig h t to be g iv e n

th e ir te stim o n y is a d e c isio n -m a k in g p o we r th a t lie s so le ly w ith th e trie r o f fa c t.

Th e trie r o f fa c t is no t o b lig a te d to b e lie v e a witn e ss e v e n if th e te st i mo n y is

u n c o n tra d ic te d a nd m a y a c c e p t or re je c t a n y p o rtio n o f th e te stim o n y .” (Cita tio n

o m itte d )). We u su a lly a ssu m e t h a t tria l ju d g e s h a v e d on e th e ir jo b

, a n d

e sp e c ia lly wh e re , a s h e re , th e tria l c o urt ha s m a d e e xte n siv e fin d in g s o f fa c t, we

7 W e note that t he t estim ony about dilation was the subject of c ross-exam i nation about

t h e extent to which lighting conditions would h ave p erm itted the of f icers to observe any dilation

. We n o t e as well that the testim ony about Hughes responding to questions in a hesitant way

was rather conclusory

.

7g e n e ra lly m

u st p re su m e th a t th e a

b se nc e o f a fin d in g of a fa c t th a t wo u ld te n d

to u n d e rm in e th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e tria l c o u rt re fle c t s a c o n sid e re d c ho ic e to

re je c t th e e v id e n c e o ffe re d to p r o v e th a t fa c t, e sp e c ia lly wh e re th e re we re

g ro u n d s u p o n wh ic h th e tria l c o u rt p ro p e rly c o u ld h a ve a ssig n e d n o we ig h t to

su c h e v id e n c e

. Th e m a

jo rity o f th e Co urt o f Ap p e a ls fa ile d to in d u l g e su c h a

p re su m p tio n , a nd b y so fa ilin g , it we n t a stra y in its a n a ly sis.

2

. Lim itin g o u r c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e d isp ute d fa c t s t o t h o se fo u n d

e x p re s s l y b y t h e tria l c ou rt, we c o n c lu d e th a t th e m a jo rity of th e Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls re a c h e d th e rig h t re su lt, n o twith sta n d in g its m isa p p lic a tio n o f th e

sta n d a rdo f re v ie w. In its o rd e r, th e tria l c o u rt fo u nd th e se m a te ria l fa c ts:

• Hu gh e s wa s o n e o f two d riv e rs in v o lv e d in a n a c c id e n t;

• Th e o th e r d riv e r d ie d o f in ju rie s su sta in e d in th e a c c id e n t;

• Offic e rs re sp on d e d to th e sc e ne o f th e a c c id e n t ar ou nd 5 :3 0

o n th e m o rn in g o f Ju n e 2 7 , 2 0 1 1 ;

• No o ffic e r c o n d u c te d fie ld so b rie ty te sts to a sc e rta in wh e th e r Hu gh e s wa s u n de r th e in flu e n c e o f a lc oh o l o r d ru gs;

• Th e o ffic e rs o b se rv e d th a t Hu g h e s a p pe a re d to b e sle e p y , h a d

“ g l a s sy e y e s with so m e re d n e ss,” an d “ m a y h a ve b e e n

u n ste a d y o n h is fe e t” ;

8• Th e o ffic e rs a rre ste d Hu g h e s a t th e sc e ne fo r ru n n in g a re d

lig h t a n d v e h ic u la r h o m ic id e in th e se c o n d d e g re e ;

• Up on a rre stin g Hu g h e s f o r t h o se o ffe n se s, th e offic e rs

se a rc h e d h is p e rso n a n d fo u n d “so m e tig h tly p a c k a g e d p ills,
wh ic h th e y

c o u ld n o t im m e d ia te ly id e ntify ” ; a n d

• F o llo w i n g t h e d isc o v e ry o f th e se p ills, a n o ffic e r re a d th e im p lie d c o n se n t wa rn in g to Hu g he s.

F o r p u rp o se s o f th is a

p p e a l, we a c c e p t th a t th e se fin d in g s o f fa c t a re su p p o rte d

b y th e e v id e n c e a n d no t, th e re fo re , c le a rly e rro n e o us. Be c a u se Hu gh e s c o n c e d e d

in c o n n e c tio n with h is m o tio n to su p p re ss th a t th e o ffic e rs h a d p ro b a b le c a use

to a rre st h im

a t th e sc e n e fo r ru n n in g a re d lig h t a n d v e hic u la r h o m ic id e in th e

se c o nd d e g re e , we a lso a c c e p t — a s fa c ts ne c e ssa rily im p lie d b y th a t c on c e ssio n

o f p ro ba b le c a u se a n d

, th e re fo re , u n disp u t e d f o r p urp o se s o f th e m o tio n to

su p p re ss — th a t th e o ffic e rs k n e w a s a re su lt o f th e ir in v e stig a tio n th a t Hu g he s

p ro b a b ly h a d d riv e n th ro u g h a re d li g h t an d t h e re b y c a u se d th e a c c id e n t in

wh ic h a n o th e r d riv e r su sta in e d fa ta l in ju rie s. S e e n o te 4 su pra . Alto g e th e r, th e

u n d isp u te d fa c ts a nd th e d isp u te d fa c ts fo un d b y th e tria l c o u rt e sta b lish th a t th e

o ffic e rs in th is c a se h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to b e lie v e th a t H u g he s h a d b e e n d riv in g

u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f d ru g s.

9A s th e Un ite d S ta te s Su p re m e Co u rt h a s e xp la in e d

, “ pro b a b le c a u s e ”

m e a n s:

[F ] a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s with in th e o ffic e r’s k n o wle d g e th a t a r e

su ffic ie nt to wa rra n t a p ru d e nt p e rso n , o r on e o f re a so n a b le c a u tio n , in b e lie v in g , in th e c i r c u m sta n c e s sh own , th a t th e su sp e c t h a s

c o m m itte d

, is c om m ittin g , o r is ab ou t to c o m m it a n o ffe n se

.

Mic h ig a n v

. De F illip p o , 4 4 3 U. S

. 3 1 (9 9 S Ct 2 6 2 7

, 6 1 L E 2 d 3 4 3 ) (1 9 7 9 )

(c ita tio n s o m itte d ). S e e a lso De v e g a v

. S ta te

, 2 8 6 G a

. 4 4 8

, 45 1 (4 ) (b ) (6 8 9

S E2 d 2 9 3 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (“ P ro b a b le c a u se e x ists if th e a rre stin g o ffic e r h a s k n o wle d g e

a n d re a so n a

b ly tru stwo rth y in fo rm a tio n a b o u t fa c t s a

n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s su ffic ie n t

fo r a p ru d e n t p e rso n to b e lie v e th e a c c u se d h a s c o m m itte d an o ffe nse .” (Cita tio n

a n d p u n c t u a t i o n o m itte d )). S o , wh e n a c o u rt c on sid e rs wh e th e r a n o ffic e r h a d

p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st a su sp e c t, th e c o u rt m ust fo c u s o n th e fa c ts a n d

c irc u m sta n c e s th e n k n o wn to th e o ffic e r, a n d it m ust in q u ire wh e th e r th o se fa c ts

a n d c irc um sta n c e s c o u ld le a d a p ru d e nt p e rso n — th a t is, a re a so n a b le o ffic e r

— to c o n c lu d e th a t th e su sp e c t p ro b a b ly h a s c o m m itte d a n o ffe n se

. Th e fa c ts

a n d c irc u m sta n c e s k n o wn to th e o ffic e r m u st b e e x a m in e d a lto g e th e r, fo r it is th e

to ta lity o f th o se fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s th a t m a tte rs, Ma ry la n d v

. P rin g le

, 5 4 0

U. S

. 3 6 6

, 3 7 1 (1 2 4 S Ct 79 5

, 1 5 7 LE2 d 7 6 9 ) (2 0 0 3 ), n o t a ny o n e fa c t o r

1 0c irc u m sta n c e sta n d in g a lo n e

. S e e Un ite d S ta te s v

. Arv iz u , 5 3 4 U. S

. 2 6 6

, 2 7 4

(1 2 2 SCt 7 4 4

, 1 5 1 L E2 d 7 40 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (re je c tin g a “ d iv id e -a n d -c o n q u e r an a ly sis”

th a t g iv e s n o we ig ht to a ny o b se rv a tio n b y a n o ffic e r th a t wa s “b y itse lf re a d ily

su s c e p tib le to a n in n o c e n t e x p la n a tio n ” ). 8 Be c a u se th e sta n d a rd fo r p ro b a b le

c a u se d e p e n d s o n wh a t a re a so n a b le o ffic e r c o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d f r om th ose

fa c ts a n d c irc um sta n c e s, th e sta nd a rd of p ro b a b le c a use is an o b

je c tiv e o n e , a n d

th e su b je c tiv e th in k in g of th e a c tu a l offic e rs in a p a rt i c u l a r c a se is n o t

im p o rta n t. 9 S e e Ro d rig u e z v

. S ta te

, 2 9 5 Ga

. 3 6 2

, 3 71 (2 ) (b ), n .1 3 (7 6 1 S E2 d

1 9 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ A s th e Un ite d S t a te s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p la in e d, su b je c tiv e

in te ntio n s p la y n o ro le in o rd in a ry p ro b a b le -c a use F o u rth Am e n d m e n t an a ly sis,

8 “Although Arvizu involved the existence o f reasonable suspicion to m ake a traf f ic

s t o p rather than o f probable cause to arrest, the opinion is relevant h ere because bot h
standards require us to e xami n e the totality of the c ircum stances.” United States v. Delossantos, 536 F3d 155, 161 n

. 5 (II) (B) (2 n d Cir. 2008). See also United States v. Yusuf

, 461 F3d 374, 390 (II) (C), n.15 (3 rd Cir. 2006).

9 That said, to the extent that the training and experience of the a ctual of f i cer would
have perm itted a r easonable of f i cer with t he sam e t raining and experience to understand the
f acts and circum stances known to the of f icer in a unique way , the training and experience of
the of f icer should be c onsidered. See Ornelas v. United S tates, 517 U. S. 690, 700 (116 SCt 1657, 134 LE2d 911) (1996) (“[ O]ur cases have recognized that a police of f icer m ay draw
inf erences based on his own experience in deciding w hether probable cause e x ists.” (Citation

om itted)). Such training a nd experience are am ong the “f a c ts and circum s t ances” known to the actual of

f icer, and t he question is whether the sam e training a nd experience would have
led a reasonable of

f icer
— in connection with all of the other f acts and circum stances known

to the actual of

f icer
— t o conclude that t h e suspect probably had com m itted a crim e. See LaFontaine v. State, 269 Ga. 251, 253 (3) (497 SE2d 367) (1998).

1 1a n d th e c o n stitu tio n a l re a so n a b le n e ss o f [se a rc he s a n d se iz ure s] d o n o t d e p e n d

o n th e a c tu a l m o tiv a tio n s of th e in d iv id u a l o ffic e rs in v o lv e d .” (Cita tio n a n d

p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d )). S e e a lso Wh re n v

. Un ite d Sta te s, 5 1 7 U. S

. 8 0 6

, 8 1 3 (II)

(A) (1 1 6 S Ct 1 7 6 9

, 1 3 5 LE2 d 8 9 ) (1 9 9 6 ). An d wh e re th e to ta lity o f th e fa c ts a n d

c irc u m sta n c e s kn o wn to a n offic e r wo u ld p e rm it re a so n a b l e offic e rs to d ra w

d iffe rin g c o n c lu sio n s a

b o u t wh e th e r th e su sp e c t p ro b a b ly ha s c om m itte d a

c rim e , p ro b a

b le c a u se e x ists, a n d it is f

or th e o ffic e r — n o t ju d ge s, tria l o r

a p p e lla te — to d e c id e wh ic h o f th e se ve ra l re a so n a b le c o nc lu sio n s to dra w. S e e

Co x v

. H a i n e y , 3 9 1 F 3 d 2 5

, 3 2 -3 3 (II) (C) (1 st Cir. 2 0 04 ) (“ [T] h e a v a ilab ility

o f a lte rn a tiv e in fe re nc e s d o e s n o t p re v e n t a fin d in g o f p ro ba b le c a u se so lo n g a s

th e in fe re n c e u p on wh ic h th e o ffic e r re lie s is r e a s o n a b l e

. . . . C o n se qu e n tly

,

wh e n c o n flic tin g in fe re n c e s a re a v a ilab le to re so lv e th e issu e of p ro b a b le c a use

a n d b o th o f th e m a re p la u si b l e , i t d oe s n ot m a tte r wh ic h in fe re n c e is c o rre c t.”

(Cita tio n s a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d)).

Alth o u g h we o we su b sta n tia l d e fe re n c e to th e wa y in w h ic h th e tria l c o urt

re so lv e d d isp u te d qu e stio ns o f m a te ria l fa c t, we o we n o d e fe re n c e a t a ll to th e

tria l c o u rt with re sp e c t to q ue stio n s o f la w, a nd in ste a d

, we m u st a p p ly th e la w

o u r s e l v e s t o th e m a te ria l fa c ts. S e e Cla y v

. S ta te

, 2 9 0 G a

. 8 2 2

, 82 8 (2 ) (7 2 5

1 2S E2 d 2 60 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Do in g so , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e o ffic e rs in t h i s c a se h a d

p ro b a b le c a u se to b e lie v e th a t Hu g h e s h a d b e e n driv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f

d ru g s. T h e o ffic e rs h a d re a so n to b e lie ve th a t Hu g h e s h a d d riv e n th ro u g h a re d

l ig h t an d c a

u se d a fa ta l a c c id e n t. Th e y h a d re a so n to th in k

— ba se d o n t h e i r

o b se rv a tio n s o f Hu g h e s a t th e sc e ne o f th e a c c id e n t — th a t Hu g he s wa s u n d e r

th e in flu e n c e o f so m e in to x ic a n t. An d th e y k n e w th a t Hu g h e s h a d a n u m b e r o f

u n k no wn p ills on h is p e rso n

. S ta n d in g a lo n e , a n y on e o f th e se c irc um sta n c e s

wo u ld no t b e e n o u g h fo r a re a so n a b le o ffic e r to c o n c lu d e th a t Hu g h e s p ro b a b ly

h a d b e e n d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e

. In d e e d

, e a c h of th e se c irc u m sta n c e s is

su sc e p tib le o f re a so na

b le e x p la n a tio n s o th e r th a n d riv in g un d e r t h e i n flu e n c e ,

a n d a lth o u g h e a c h c irc u m sta n c e is c o n siste n t with d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e ,

a n in n o c e n t e x p la n a tio n fo r e a c h c irc u m sta n c e m ig h t b e m o re pro ba b le

. F o r

in sta n c e , th e ru n n in g o f th e re d lig h t a n d th e a c c id e nt th a t fo llo w e d c o u ld

re a so na b ly h a v e b e e n a ttrib u te d to H u g h es h a v in g b e e n sle e p d e p riv e d

,

e sp e c ia lly c o n sid e rin g th e e a rly

- mo rn in g h o u r o f th e a c c id e n t a n d th a t h e

a p p e a re d sle e py a fte rwa rd s. His u n ste a din e ss a n d re d e y e s c ou ld h a v e b e e n

c h a lk e d u p to th e d e p lo y m e n t o f a n a ir b a g in th e c o llisio n

. An d h is p o sse ssio n

o f p ills d o e s n o t n e c e ssa rily m e a n th a t Hu gh e s h a d ta k e n a n y

. Bu t a g a in

, we d o

1 3n o t c o n sid e r a n y fa c t o r c irc u m sta nc e st a n d i n g a lo n e

. Ta k e n to g e th e r, a

r e a so n a b le o ffic e r c o u ld c o n c lu d e , we th in k

, th a t d riv in g u n d e r th e in fl u e n c e

wa s a n e q u a lly o r m o re p ro b a b le e x p la n a tio n fo r th e fa c ts a nd c irc um sta n c e s

k n o w n to t h e o f

f i c e rs th a n a n im

p ro b a b le c oin c id e n c e o f m

u ltip le in n o c e n t

e x p la n a tio n s. S e e , e .g ., Wa lk e r v

. City o f Hu n tsv ille

, 3 1 0 F Ap px 3 35

, 3 3 8 (III)

(1 1 th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ); S ta te v

. Un d e rwo o d

, 2 8 3 Ga

. 4 9 8

, 5 0 0 (6 6 1 S E2 d 5 2 9 ) (2 0 0 8);

F irsa no v v . S ta te , 2 70 Ga . 8 7 3 , 8 7 4 (3 ) (5 1 3 S E2 d 1 8 4 ) (1 9 9 9 ).

Th e tria l c o u rt a n d d isse n tin g ju d ge s i n t h e C o u rt o f Ap p e a ls c o n c lu d e d

o th e rwise

, b u t th e y m isap p lie d th e le g a l sta n d ard fo r p ro b a ble c a u se in se v e ra l

wa y s. Th e tria l c o urt, fo r in sta n c e , se e m s to h a v e a ttrib u te d m u c h sig nific a n c e

to th e fa c t th a t th e o ffic e rs in th is c a se d id n ot su b je c tiv e ly su sp e c t Hu g h e s wa s

d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e u n til th e y d isc o v e re d th e p ills. Bu t th a t th e o ffic e rs

m a y h a v e h a d a d iffe re n t v ie w o f Hu g h e s a fte r f i n d i n g t h e p ills is e n tire ly

u n re m a rk a

b le be c a u se , a s th e ma

j o r i t y o f th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls pu t it, th e

d isc o v e ry o f th e p ills “ p ut in to c o n te x t h is d isjo in te d d e m e an o r.” Hu g h e s, 3 2 5

Ga

. Ap p

. a t 4 3 2

. An d m o re im po rta n t, th e su b

je c tiv e th in k in g of th e a c tu a l

o ffic e rs is n o t c r i t i c a l

. Wh a t m a tte rs is wh a t a re a so n a b le o ffic e r c o u ld h a v e

1 4c o n c lu d e d f

r o m th e fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s k n o wn to th e o ffic e rs. S e e

Ro d rig u e z , 2 9 5 Ga . a t 3 7 1 (2 ) (b ), n

. 1 3

.

Th e tria l c o u rt a

pp e a rs a s we ll to h a ve m a d e th e m ista k e o f e m p lo y in g a

“ d iv id e -a n d -c on q u e r” a

pp ro a c h

, c o n sid e ri ng e a c h o f th e se v e ra l fa c ts a n d

c irc u m sta n c e s kn own to th e o ffic e rs in iso la tio n , ra th e r th a n a lto g e th e r. F o r

in sta n c e , in its o r d e r , th e tria l c o u rt fo u n d th a t th e m a n ife sta tio n s o f d ru g

in to x ic a tio n o bse rv e d by th e o ffic e rs a t th e sc e n e of th e a c c id e n t — sle e p in e ss,

u n ste a din e ss, a nd g la ssy a n d re d e y e s — a lso “ w e re c o n siste n t wit h t h e a f te re ffe c ts of a n a

u to m o b ile c o llisio n wh e re a n a irb a g d e p l o y e d .” Ab o u t th e p ills

th a t th e offic e rs fo u n d on Hu g h e s, th e tria l c o u rt sa id th a t “ fin d in g th e se d ru g s,

with ou t a ny e v id e n c e o f r e c e n t c o n su m p tio n , m a y fu rn ish a n o ffic e r with a

h u n c h or su sp ic io n , b u t no t p ro b a b le c a u se th a t with sta n d s c o n stitu tio n a l

sc ru tin y .” We ta ke issu e with n e ith e r o f th e se sta te m e nts b y th e tria l c o u rt. Th e

p ro b le m is, th e tria l c o u rt se e ms to h a v e n e v e r c o n sid e re d wh e th e r th e

m a n ife sta tio n s o b se rv e d b y th e o ffic e r s a t t h e sc e n e — wh ic h we re c o n siste n t

with d ru g in to x ic a tio n a s we ll a s su rv iv in g a n a c c id e n t in wh ic h a n a irb a g is

d e p lo y e d
— a m o u n te d to “ e v id e n c e o f re c e nt c o n su m p tio n ,” su c h th a t th e

d isc o v e ry o f th e pills wo u ld h a v e c a st th ose m a n ife sta tio n s in a d iffe re n t lig h t

1 5in th e e y e s o f a re a so n a b le o ffic e r, a n d th e m a n ife sta tio ns wo uld h a v e c a st th e

d isc o v e ry o f th e p ills in a d iffe re n t lig h t. Th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e a c c id e n t

—

fro m wh ic h a re a so n a

b le o ffic e r c o u l d m a k e so m e in fe re n c e s a b o ut th e c on d itio n

o f Hu g h e s b e

fo re th e a c c id e n t a n d a ny a irb a g d e p lo y m e n t — a lso in fo rm h o w

re a so na b le o ffic e rs m ig ht vie w h is c on ditio n a fte r th e a c c id e n t, a s we ll a s th e

p ills fo u n d o n h is p e rso n

. T h e d isse ntin g ju d g e s a t th e C o u rt o f Ap p e a ls a p pe a r

to h a ve m a d e a sim ila r m ista k e

. S e e Hu g h e s , 3 2 5 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 4 3 8 (Mille r, J.,

d isse ntin g ) (“ [T] h e p re se n c e o f th e d ru gs, a lo n e , d o e s no t e sta b l i s h p r o b a b le

c a u se .” (Em p ha sis su p p lie d )). Ag a in

, c o u rts d o n o t lo ok a t a n y on e c irc u m sta n c e

a lo n e

. It is th e to ta lity o f th e c irc u m sta nc e s th a t m a tte rs. S e e Arv iz u , 5 34 U. S

.

a t 2 7 4

.

F in a lly

, th e tria l c o u rt a n d th e d isse n tin g ju d g e s a t th e Co u rt of Ap p e a ls

a l l se e m to h a v e p u t to o m

u c h we ig h t o n th e no tio n th a t so m e o f th e fa c t s a n d

c irc u m sta n c e s k n o wn to th e o ffic e rs — e sp e c ia lly th e u n ste a d in e ss, sle e p in e ss,

a n d gla ssy a n d re d e y e s th a t th e o ffic e r s o b se rv e d a t th e sc e n e — c ou ld h a v e

b e e n su sc e p tib le o f in n o c e n t e x p la n a tio n s. A s th e m a jo rity of th e Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls c o rre c tly e x p la in e d

, “ [t] h e fa c t th a t th e re m ay b e o th e r e xp la n a tio n s fo r

Hu g he s’s u n u su a l b e h a v io r a nd m a n ife sta tio n s do e s n o t e sta b lish ” th a t it wo u ld

1 6h a v e b e e n u n re a so n a b le fo r a n o ffic e r to d ra w th e c o n c lu sio n th a t Hu g he s

p ro b a b ly h a d b e e n d riv in g u n d e r th e i n f l u e n c e

. Hu gh e s, 3 2 5 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 4 3 3

.

S e e a lso Illin o is v

. Ga te s, 46 2 U. S

. 2 1 3

, 2 43 (IV), n .1 3 (1 0 3 S Ct 2 31 7

, 7 6 LE2 d

5 2 7 ) (1 9 8 3 ) (n o tin g th a t “ in n o c e n t b e h a vio r fre q u e ntly will p ro v id e th e b a sis fo r

a sh o win g o f p ro b a

b le c a u se ” ); Un ite d S ta te s v

. D e lo ssa n to s, 5 3 6 F 3 d 15 5

, 1 6 1

(II) (B) (2 n d C ir. 20 0 8 ) (“ T h e fa c t th a t a n in no c e n t e xp la n a tio n m a y b e c o n siste n t

with th e fa c ts a lle g e d d o e s n o t n e g a te p ro b a b l e c a u se .” (Cita tio n a n d

p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d )). I n d e e d

, bo th o f th e d isse n tin g op in io n s in th e Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls a c k n o wle d g e d th a t o n e re a so n a bly c o u ld in f

er f r o m th e fa c ts a n d

c irc u m sta n c e s k n o wn to th e o ffi c e r s t h a t Hu g he s wa s d riv in g u n d e r th e

in flu e n c e . S e e Hu g h e s, 3 2 5 Ga . Ap p . a t 4 3 8 (Mille r, J., d isse n tin g ) (“ Th e tria l

c o u rt c o uld h a v e d ra wn a n in fe re n c e th a t Hu g h e s wa s u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f

d ru g s o r a lc o ho l.” ); id

. a t 4 3 9 (Ba rn e s, P.J., d isse n tin g ) (“ He re , th e u n d e rly in g

fa c ts c le a rly wo u ld h a v e su pp o rte d a n in fe re n c e b y th e tria l c o u rt th a t Hu g he s

wa s im p a ire d b y ille g a l d ru gs wh e n h e c a u se d th e a

u to m o bile a c c id e n t . . . .” ).

No twith sta n d in g th e re a so n a b le n e ss of su c h a n in fe re n c e , th e d isse n tin g ju d ge s

h e ld th a t th e y h a d to de fe r to th e d e t e rm in a tio n b y th e tria l c o u rt th a t th e fa c ts

a n d c irc u m sta n c e s d id n o t sh o w th a t Hu g h e s wa s, in fa c t, im p a ire d

. Th e p ro b le m

1 7is, th e tria l c o u rt wa s n o t c h a rg e d with d e te rm in in g w h e th e r Hu gh e s wa s, in fa c t,

d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e

. Th e jo b o f th e tria l c o urt wa s to d e te rm in e wh e th e r

re a so na b le o ffic e rs c o u ld h a v e c on c lu d e d th a t h e p ro b a b ly wa s. Th a t is, th e tria l

c o u rt wa s su p p o se d to d e te rm in e wh e th e r th e o ffic e rs h a d p ro b a b le c a use

. Th e

e x iste nc e o f p ro b a

b le c a u se is a le g a l q u e stio n a s to wh ic h th e a p pe lla te c o u rts

o we n o d e fe re n c e to tria l ju d g e s. An d in a ny e v e n t, if re a so na b le o ffic e rs c o u ld

h a v e re a c h e d d iffe re n t c o n c lu sio n s — so m e c o n c lu d in g re a so n a b ly th a t Hu g he s

p ro b a b ly h a d b e e n d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e , a n d o th e rs re a so n a b ly

c o n c lu d in g o th e rwise

— th e n p ro b a b le c a u se b y d e fin itio n wa s e sta b lish e d

. S e e

Co x , 3 9 1 F 3 d a t 3 2 -3 3 (II) (C).

F o r th e se re a so n s, w e a g re e with th e m a jo rity o f th e C o urt o f Ap p e a ls th a t

th e fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s k n ow n t o t h e o ffic e rs w e re su ffic ie n t to e sta b lish

p ro b a b le c a u se , a n d th e tria l c o u rt, th e re fo re , e rre d wh e n it gra nte d th e m o tio n

to su p p re ss. Th e ju d g m e n t o f th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls is a ffirm e d

. T o th e e x te n t

th a t Gra y v . S ta te , 2 6 7 Ga . Ap p . 7 5 3

, 7 5 6 (2 ) (6 0 0 S E2 d 6 2 6) (2 00 4 ), S ta te v

.

Go o de

, 2 9 8 Ga

. Ap p

. 7 4 9

, 7 5 0 (6 8 1 S E2 d 1 9 9 ) (2 0 0 9 ), a n d S ta te v

. En c in a s,

1 83 0 2 Ga

. Ap p

. 3 3 4

, 3 3 6 (6 9 1 S E2 d 2 5 7 ) (2 01 0)

, c o n f l i c t with o ur a n a ly sis, we

d isap p ro v e th o se d e c isio n s. 1 0

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

10 Gray

, u p on which Hughes and the t rial court r e l i e d i n this case, seem s to have approved of the “divide-and-conquer” approach, which the U nited States Sup r e m e Court has disapproved, and w h i c h w e d i s a pprove today

. See 267 Ga. App. at 6 28 (“Finding that all alleged indicia o f im

pairm ent were caused b y the accident

. . . and that Gray had adequately explained the accident t o the of f icer, the trial court concluded that the only evidence of DUI

was the presence of alcohol in Gray ’s body .” (Citation om itted)). Goode a n d E ncinas suggest that, upon a m otion to suppress f o r l a c k o f probable cause to believe that one w as driving
under the inf

luence, the p ertinent question is whether that person was, in f act, an im paired driver, such that appellate c ourts m ust def er t o the inf

erences drawn by the trial c ourt, rather
than the i nf

erences that a reasonable of f icer could have drawn. S ee Goode, 298 Ga. App. at 750 (“W here, as here, t he underly ing f a cts support conf

l icting inf erences as to whether the
def endant was an im

paired driver, we apply a clearly erroneous s tandard o f review and def er to the trial court’s f

inding on the issue.” ( Citation om i tted)); Encinas, 302 Ga. App. at 336 (sam e, citing Goode).

1 9