Wayne Dixon 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. Following the partial grant of Dixon’s motion to suppress evidence obtained at a traffic stop, the State appeals, contending the trial court erred in finding Dixon was in custody when the officer administered a preliminary alcohol-screening breath test the “alco-sensor”. We agree and reverse. On appeal from a ruling on a motion to suppress, we must construe the evidence most favorably to affirming the trial court’s factual findings and judgment. We accept the trial court’s factual and credibility determinations unless they are clearly erroneous, and the factual findings will be upheld if they are supported by any evidence. The trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts, however, is subject to a de novo standard of review. Footnotes omitted. State v. Sledge , 264 Ga. App. 612, 613 591 SE2d 479 2003.
Under Georgia’s protections against the State compelling an arrestee to give evidence against himself,1 the result of a field sobriety test performed when a suspect was “in custody” will be admissible only if the request to perform the field sobriety test was preceded by Miranda warnings. Price v. State , 269 Ga. at 225 3. “In deciding whether the suspect was in custody, the proper inquiry is whether the individual was formally arrested or restrained to a degree associated with a formal arrest, not whether the police had probable cause to arrest.” Citations and punctuation omitted. State v. Picot , 255 Ga. App. 513, 515 2 565 SE2d 865 2002. “The test of ‘in custody’ is whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have thought the detention would not be temporary.” Footnote and punctuation omitted. Price v. State , 269 Ga. at 225 3. A trial court deciding whether to admit evidence must apply this objective test; “it is the reasonable belief of an ordinary person under such circumstances, and not the subjective belief or intent of the officer, that determines whether an arrest has been effected.” Footnote and punctuation omitted. Harmon v. State , 253 Ga. App. 140, 141-142 1 558 SE2d 733 2001.
