The juvenile court adjudicated A. A and J. H. delinquent for curfew violation, OCGA § 15-11-2, and minor in possession of alcoholic beverage, OCGA § 3-3-23. In addition, A. A. was adjudicated delinquent for driving under the influence, OCGA § 40-6-391, and possession of marijuana, OCGA § 16-13-30. On appeal, the juveniles argue that the evidence was insufficient and that the court erred in denying their motion to suppress. For reasons which follow, we conclude there was no reversible error and affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s findings and judgment, the evidence was that a police officer on patrol saw a truck pull out of an elementary school parking lot at 2:30 a.m. Because there had been incidents of vandalism at the school, the officer became suspicious and followed the truck. The truck made several turns and finally drove into a residential area and down a street ending in a cul-de-sac. The truck “hesitated” for quite a while in the cul-de-sac, and then, as the officer’s car approached, quickly pulled into a driveway and stopped. The officer pulled up behind the truck, got out of his car and walked up to the driver’s side window. There were two boys and two girls inside and the officer noticed that the driver’s eyes were bloodshot and there was a strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. The officer asked if anyone lived in the house and they all said no.
The officer asked A. A., who was driving, to get out of the truck. When questioned, both A. A. and J. H. admitted to drinking a “couple of beers.” A. A. agreed to submit to a field sobriety test. A. A. was able to complete two of the tests but failed the horizontal gaze and nystagmus test. Based on this and A. A.’s admission that he had been drinking, his demeanor and bloodshot eyes, and the strong odor of alcohol on his breath, the officer arrested him for D.U.I. A. A. later agreed to take an Intoxilyzer test that showed his blood alcohol content to be .025 percent.
