 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Crawford-Thomas v. State3/26/2004
clination. [FN5]
FN4. Parker v. State, 233 Ga.App. 616, 617-618(1), 504 S.E.2d 774 (1998); Simmons v. State, 223 Ga.App. 781, 782(2), 479 S.E.2d 123 (1996).
FN5. Parker, supra at 618, 504 S.E.2d 774; Simmons, supra.
In the current case, after the traffic stop ended by the officer handing the warning ticket to Crawford-Thomas, the officer did not continue to detain and question Crawford-Thomas based on mere *608 caprice or a hunch. Rather, he had specific, articulable facts that gave rise to his suspicion that she was under the influence of alcohol. Those facts included her erratic driving--driving through the gore, weaving in and out of her lane of traffic, and speeding; her red and watery eyes; her initial refusal to look toward the officer whenever she spoke; and the smell of alcohol coming from her when she finally did look at him and speak. [FN6]
FN6. See generally Powers v. State, 261 Ga.App. 296, 300-301(2), 582 S.E.2d 237 (2003); Buchnowski v. State, 233 Ga.App. 766, 767-
768(1), 505 S.E.2d 263 (1998).
Because the officer had reasonable suspicion that Crawford-Thomas was driving under the influence of alcohol, he did not act improperly in continuing his investigation after the initial traffic stop had ended. The trial court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|