Following a stipulated bench trial, Caleb Dodds was convicted of violating OCGA § 40-6-391 k 1 underage DUI per se, which prohibits a person under the age of 21 from driving while having, from prior alcohol consumption, a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 grams or more within three hours of the driving. On appeal, Dodds contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his test results, because the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. We disagree and affirm. While the trial court’s findings as to disputed facts in a ruling on a motion to suppress will be reviewed to determine whether the ruling was clearly erroneous, where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review. Citations omitted. Vansant v. State .1 As the evidence here is undisputed, we review the trial court’s ruling de novo. At the suppression hearing, the evidence showed that at approximately 3:20 a.m., a police officer observed Dodds driving a car with the registration sticker covered by a frame around the license plate.2 The officer stopped the vehicle and asked Dodds for his driver’s license. As the officer spoke to Dodds, the officer noticed the smell of alcohol coming from inside the vehicle. After noticing that Dodds’s driver’s license indicated that Dodds was under 21 years old, the officer asked Dodds if he had been drinking. Dodds replied that he had consumed “about two beers . . . a little bit earlier.” The officer then asked Dodds to step outside of his vehicle, and as they spoke further, the officer noticed the smell of alcohol coming from Dodds’s person.
The officer then sought and received Dodds’s consent to perform an alco-sensor test, which registered positive for alcohol. However, during the suppression hearing, upon Dodds’s objection, the officer could not testify as to the foundation of the test result, and the trial court excluded from consideration the positive result of the alco-sensor test.3 After administering the alco-sensor test, the officer placed Dodds under arrest “for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence per se.” The officer did not have Dodds perform any field sobriety tests. He then handcuffed Dodds and read him the implied consent notice for suspects under the age of 21. Dodds consented and ultimately tested .096 on the Intoxilyzer 5000 at the county jail.
