Reese, Judge.The State appeals from the trial court’s grant of Susan Council’s motion in limine to suppress the results of a breath test obtained after her arrest for driving under the influence (“DUI”).[1] For the reasons set forth, infra, we reverse. The record shows that, on September 15, 2016, at approximately 9:00 p.m., a multi-vehicle collision occurred involving the Appellee. A Cobb County police officer responded to the scene and began to triage individuals involved in the accident. He spoke to the Appellee to determine if she was injured. The Appellee did not indicate to the officer that she was injured, and she declined medical treatment. She explained to the officer that she “saw traffic stopping ahead but didn’t apply any brakes[.]” After the officer spoke with the Appellee, emergency medical personnel and several firefighters told him “ they believed that [the Appellee] was under the influence of alcohol.” The officer called for a DUI Task Force Officer (“DUI officer”) to continue the investigation.A DUI officer arrived on the scene and, after speaking with the responding officer, he spoke with the Appellee. The DUI officer observed a strong odor of alcohol on the Appellee and that her eyes were bloodshot and watery. She admitted to having drunk two glasses of wine. During the conversation, the Appellee’s phone rang, and the DUI officer permitted the Appellee to answer it. After finishing the phone call, the Appellee blew into a portable Intoxilyzer, which indicated she “tested positive for alcohol.” The Appellee initially agreed to participate in the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (“HGN”) test, but then declined to perform the remaining evaluations after the DUI officer reminded her that those tests were voluntary evaluations to determine if she was safe to drive. The DUI officer testified that there was no animosity during the field sobriety testing and that the Appellee “was polite the entire time.” The Appellee was placed under arrest and handcuffed. When the DUI officer initially started reading the implied consent notice, the Appellee interrupted and requested to stand on the other side of her vehicle, away from traffic. After the Appellee moved to the opposite side of her car, the DUI officer started over and read the implied consent notice. After the Appellee asked the DUI officer whether Georgia’s laws had changed, the DUI officer read the implied consent notice to her again. The DUI officer asked the Appellee if she would undergo a breath test, and she consented. The DUI officer then transported the Appellee to a Cobb County Police Precinct station. On the way to the police station, which was a few minutes away from the accident scene, the Appellee’s phone rang, and she asked the DUI officer if she could answer it. He apologized to the Appellee and said he could not allow her to answer her phone. During the conversation, the DUI officer offered to send another officer to check on the Appellee’s 14-year-old daughter, who was at home alone. The DUI officer also told the Appellee that, even though it was against the police department’s policy, “when we get to the precinct, once we’re finished there at the precinct, I’ll let you call [your boyfriend] to make sure [your daughter] gets checked on.” After arriving at the police station, the DUI officer removed the Appellee’s handcuffs and administered two breath tests.[2]The Appellee filed a motion in limine to exclude the results of her field sobriety and breath tests. After a hearing, the trial court found probable cause for the Appellee’s arrest, granted the Appellee’s motion to suppress her HGN test, and ruled that the administration of the breath test violated the Appellee’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination. The State filed a timely appeal of the order, challenging the suppression of the breath test results.[3] 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.[4]
