Posted by duijim in on September 2, 2025
The trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence from his breath test results, holding correctly that its administration did not violate his due process rights.
Conviction for driving under the influence was upheld as evidence supported a finding that defendant had crossed over the fog line while driving.
1. The arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest you.
State Patrol and local Atlanta police officers perform frequent boating under the Influence (BUI) arrests around Lake Allatoona and make numerous BUI arrests every year. Their patrolling often occurs late at night when people are enjoying dinner, music and drinks nearby – making it easy for officers to spot people driving under the influence and pull them over for arrest if they smell alcohol on your breath or see you fail one of the field sobriety tests in Atlanta.
Courts have held that trials did not err when they denied a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of blood-alcohol content taken after their arrest because there was probable cause to believe he or she was operating their vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, with observations such as slurred speech, red and watery eyes, and other physical manifestations supporting that belief (State v. Cain 274 Georgia App 533 617 S.E 2d 567 2005).
Attorney James Yeargan can provide you with expert DUI representation that understands Georgia law and will hold police accountable when they violate your rights. James will review video footage of your arrest to assess how officers interacted with you; additionally he will examine results from horizontal gaze nystagmus tests, walk and turn tests, and one leg stand tests administered and conducted upon you – how well these were administered as well as your performance on them.
2. The arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to arrest you.
Due to an increasing influx of visitors coming out to our lakes and rivers, Georgia Department of Natural Resources and local sheriff’s departments have significantly stepped up BUI patrols this summer, leading them to make numerous arrests as a result.
An DUI conviction will have serious repercussions in your life, such as lost employment or even termination, higher car insurance premiums and steep fines. A qualified DUI Lawyer Atlanta may help defend you against this charge and possibly have it reduced to reckless driving with less severe penalties.
As well as filing criminal cases in Atlanta Municipal Court, an administrative license suspension action must also be brought before a judge from Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings (OSAH). This proceeding deals with your privilege to operate motor vehicles on state roadways; should you agree to submit to blood or breath testing after receiving an implied consent notice, or refuse testing after being informed about it and have an alcohol concentration above the legal limit, an OSAH case must be initiated against you.
As part of an OSAH hearing, it is necessary for you to provide testimony about your involvement in an incident. Bring any citation paperwork, vehicle impound yard receipts and ignition interlock documents you have received with you for direct examination by an OSAH judge. Your attorney will assist in this regard.
3. The arresting officer did not have sufficient evidence to arrest you.
DUI Lawyer Atlanta James Yeargan has the experience and training to defend you in court, with over one hundred not guilty verdicts under his belt. He will scrutinize each stop to assess if there was sufficient probable cause to pull you over, such as traffic violations or unsafe driving behavior observed by officers – many officers now use body and dash cameras that record what occurred at the time of your arrest.
If the police did not have probable cause to stop or search your boat, your case could be dismissed. That is why having an experienced DUI attorney on your side can be essential – to review all evidence and ensure the appropriate procedures were adhered to.
An arrest for Boating Under the Influence in Georgia can have serious repercussions, from your ability to operate a vessel to insurance rates and employment opportunities – not to mention permanent criminal records, especially if there were minors present at the time.
James “DUI Jim” Yeargan of Yeargan & Kert in Atlanta will work diligently on your behalf to have your charges reduced or dismissed altogether. Their team has extensive experience handling DUI cases throughout Georgia; additionally they handle other forms of criminal offense as well as civil claims such as personal injury lawsuits.
4. The arresting officer did not have enough evidence to arrest you.
Unfortunately, not every story ends well – some just end in tears or anger, depending on who’s telling it! So to all my fellow travelers looking for work – stay positive, have faith, don’t take anything for granted – there’s plenty more out there that needs doing than there ever could possibly be room for. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained through a breath test as the State presented sufficient probable cause that she had consumed alcohol and was driving her motor vehicle; an officer’s observations of alcohol on her breath as well as other objective observations provided enough proof for arrest for DUI. Murray v. State (261 Ga. App. 867, 586 S.E.2d 754) held that an officer’s comments that he intended to close off a driver’s car door so another drunk wouldn’t try taking off with it were insufficient evidence of articulable suspicion to justify a search warrant. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) testing results were acceptable as well, meaning Miranda warnings aren’t necessary prior to administering field sobriety tests. Even if the officer had failed to read the defendant his Miranda rights, his statements about conducting blood and urine tests as well as asking for a breath sample were mere statements and did not violate their right against compelled self-incrimination.
The state must establish that alcohol impairs a driver’s ability to drive; it is insufficient to demonstrate the mere presence of alcohol as a factor that makes him or her less safe. Any objections raised against procedures used in reading the statutory implied consent warning and operating the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine were improperly raised as motions to suppress, when in reality such issues should have been raised as motions in limine.