State v. Tan

An Intoxilyzer printout showing an insufficient sample, and thus no results, does not fall within the meaning of a scientific report subject to discovery under OCGA § 17-16-23.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this prosecution for driving under the influence, the trial court granted a certificate of immediate review to allow the State to appeal its order granting Fen Yue Tan’s motion to suppress the breath test slip from the Intoxilyzer 5000 and all testimony regarding the intoxilyzer.1 For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. In considering the trial court’s grant of Tan’s motion to suppress, we apply a de novo review to the trial court’s application of the law to the facts if the facts are stipulated, or if the critical facts do not depend on the testimony of witnesses who are subject to cross-examination. However, a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress frequently involves a mixed question of fact and law. When the outcome of a motion to suppress depends on the credibility of the witnesses or on disputed facts, and the trial court has not committed an error of law, the court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. Citation omitted. Watson v. State , 302 Ga. App. 619, 621 1 691 SE2d 378 2010.

Here, the record reflects that Tan was arrested on August 24, 2008 for driving under the influence. Following her arrest, on January 26, 2009, Tan filed a motion to suppress and discovery requests, including a request for all “scientific reports” in accordance with OCGA § 17-16-23. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer Michael E. Knorps of the Gwinnett County Police Department testified that he heard a crash as Tan’s car rear-ended the car in front of it when both vehicles were merging to enter a police DUI checkpoint. When Tan exited her car, Knorps observed that she was swaying “a bit” and that her eyes were bloodshot. Knorps also could smell a strong odor of alcohol coming from her person and her car, so he summoned a DUI officer.

State v. Tan

An Intoxilyzer printout showing an insufficient sample, and thus no results, does not fall within the meaning of a scientific report subject to discovery under OCGA § 17-16-23.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report