Dawn Denise Tousley stands accused in the State Court of Gwinnett County of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe to drive, OCGA § 40-6-391 a 1; driving under the influence of alcohol while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, OCGA § 40-6-391 a 5; and failure to maintain lane, OCGA § § 40-6-1, 40-6-48. After a hearing, the trial court granted Tousley’s motion to exclude evidence regarding her performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus HGN test, finding that the arresting officer failed to administer the test properly. The trial court concluded that, without the HGN test results, the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest Tousley for DUI and accordingly granted her motion to suppress the results of a breath test administered after the arrest. The State appeals pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 a 4. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s ruling to the extent it excluded the HGN test results, vacate the order suppressing the breathalyzer test results, and remand. Because the trial court sits as the trier of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress or a motion in limine, its findings based upon conflicting evidence are analogous to a jury verdict and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support them. Monas v. State , 270 Ga. App. 50 2 606 SE2d 80 2004. When we review a trial court’s decision on such motions to exclude evidence, we construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment, and we adopt the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. When the 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.” Citation omitted. Vansant v. State , 264 Ga. 319, 320 1 443 SE2d 474 1994. “With mixed questions of fact and law, the appellate court accepts the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and witness credibility unless clearly erroneous, but independently applies the legal principles to the facts.” Citation omitted. Morrow v. State , 272 Ga. 691, 693 1 532 SE2d 78 2000.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, the record shows the following facts. At approximately 11:50 p.m. on February 21, 2003, an officer observed the wheels of the vehicle Tousley was driving cross the lane divider. The officer activated his lights, which also activated the patrol car’s video camera. The officer then observed Tousley’s wheels cross the lane divider a second time and saw her flash her high beams at the car in front her, which the officer interpreted as a signal that Tousley wanted to travel faster than that car. In response to the officer’s signal, Tousley pulled over in a parking lot.
