Dodds v. State
Nov 05, 2007OUTCOME: Bench trial verdict affirmed.
Despite not having any evidence of impaired driving or any evidence prior to arrest that defendant had an unlawful blood alcohol level, the appellate court nonetheless held that "The officer did not ne ... ed to show a reason to believe that Dodds was a less safe driver, or that he was impaired; he needed only to show reason to believe that Dodds, a nineteen-year-old, had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 within three hours of driving (from the alcohol he consumed prior to driving).[7] In light of Dodds's admission that he had two beers "a little bit earlier," and the smell of alcohol the officer perceived from Dodds's person, the trial court correctly concluded that the officer had probable cause to believe Dodds had violated OCGA § 40-6-391 (k) (1)."
