A jury convicted Gregory Louis Campbell of driving under the influence of drugs to the extent that it was less safe to drive “DUI-less safe”, possession of marijuana, speeding, and failure to change the address on his driver’s license. The trial court denied his motion for new trial. Proceeding pro se, Campbell contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment, and the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility of the witnesses are adopted unless they are clearly erroneous. Further, because the trial court is the trier of fact, its findings are analogous to a jury verdict and will not be disturbed if any evidence supports them. However, when evidence is uncontroverted and no question of witness credibility is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review. Punctuation and footnotes omitted. Hammont v. State , 309 Ga. App. 395, 396 710 SE2d 598 2011. Moreover, “we may consider trial testimony in addition to the testimony submitted during the motion to suppress hearing.” Citation omitted. Davis v. State , 304 Ga. App. 355, 356 1 696 SE2d 381 2010. Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, the record shows that at around midnight on February 4, 2009, an officer with the City of Woodstock Police Department was conducting speed enforcement along Interstate 92 in Cherokee County. Using a laser speed detection device, the officer measured the speed of the vehicle driven by Campbell at 63 miles per hour. The posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour.
The officer initiated a traffic stop of Campbell’s vehicle for speeding. When the officer subsequently approached Campbell’s vehicle, he smelled what he believed in light of his training and experience was the “faint odor of burnt marijuana” emanating from inside the vehicle. The officer requested that Campbell and the front seat passenger produce their driver’s licenses for examination, and both of them complied. When the officer asked Campbell if the address on his license was correct, he responded that the address was incorrect. Campbell further noted that he had lived at a different address for approximately one year. The officer also asked Campbell if there was anything in the vehicle “that the officer needed to be concerned about” such as “guns, knives, drugs, or bombs,” and he responded, “nothing you need to be concerned about.”
