On March 23, 2003, a DeKalb County police officer arrested Jeana Pan Chun for speeding, OCGA § 40-6-181, and driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe to drive, OCGA § 40-6-391 a 1. Prior to trial, Chun filed a motion in limine to exclude the evidence that she refused to submit to state-administered chemical testing. The trial court granted Chun’s motion after concluding that the arresting officer gave “technically correct” but misleading information in addition to the implied consent notice which impaired Chun’s ability to decide whether to submit to testing. The State of Georgia appeals from the trial court’s order. Because we find no substantial basis for the trial court’s ruling, we reverse. “Where the evidence at a hearing on a motion in limine is uncontroverted, and no issue exists regarding the credibility of witnesses, we review the trial court’s ruling to ensure that there was a substantial basis for it. The trial court’s application of the law to the undisputed facts is subject to de novo review.” Citations and punctuation omitted. State v. Terry , 236 Ga. App. 248, 249 511 SE2d 608 1999. “The determinative issue with the implied consent notice is whether the notice given was substantively accurate so as to permit the driver to make an informed decision about whether to consent to testing.” Citation and punctuation omitted. Leiske v. State , 255 Ga. App. 615, 617 565 SE2d 925 2002. Even when the officer properly gives the implied consent notice, if the officer gives additional, “deceptively misleading information” that impairs a defendant’s ability to make an informed decision about whether to submit to testing, the defendant’s test results or evidence of his refusal to submit to testing must be suppressed. State v. Peirce , 257 Ga. App. 623, 625 1 571 SE2d 826 2002. The suppression of evidence, however, is an extreme sanction and one not favored in the law. State v. Kampplain , 223 Ga. App. 16, 18 477 SE2d 143 1996.
The evidence presented at the hearing on Chun’s motion in limine shows that the officer stopped Chun for driving approximately 80 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. zone. The officer observed various indicators that Chun was under the influence of alcohol, including slurred speech and red, watery eyes, and Chun admitted to having had three drinks. Following Chun’s failure of field sobriety tests and a positive result on the AlcoSensor test, the officer arrested her for DUI. The officer read the proper informed consent notice to Chun. See OCGA § 40-5-67.1 b 2 notice for drivers 21 years old and over. After the officer initially read the notice, Chun asked him whether her license would be suspended if she refused to submit to chemical testing. Chun also expressed some concern about what would happen if she submitted to the test and had a result under 0.08 grams. In response to Chun’s questions, the officer reread part of the notice, and explained that if she refused the chemical test, her license would be suspended for one year; that if she took the test and registered 0.08 or higher, her license would be suspended; and, even if she took the test and registered lower than 0.08, her license could be suspended if she was convicted of DUI at trial. Chun refused to submit to the test. Later, at the police station, the officer again read Chun the implied consent notice, and Chun declined to be tested. Chun did not testify at the hearing.
