A police officer does not necessarily have to see a vehicle traveling down the road before a Georgia DUI investigation can begin.

Officers sometimes encounter suspected impaired drivers in parking lots, on the shoulder of a road, at gas stations, or inside vehicles that are completely stopped when police arrive. The driver may be awake, asleep behind the wheel, or sitting in a vehicle with the engine turned off.

Those circumstances can lead to a DUI investigation, but being intoxicated while merely occupying a parked vehicle is not, by itself, the same thing as committing DUI under Georgia law.

That distinction is important.

Georgia’s DUI statute, O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391, prohibits a person from driving or being in “actual physical control of any moving vehicle” while in one of the prohibited conditions described by the statute, including being under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the person is less safe to drive.

Therefore, a parked-vehicle DUI case often turns on a different question from a typical traffic-stop case:

Can the evidence establish that the person drove or was in actual physical control of the vehicle while it was moving and while the person was impaired?

Georgia courts have repeatedly held that the State may use circumstantial evidence to answer that question. An officer does not always have to personally witness the vehicle moving.

Merely Sitting Intoxicated in a Parked Car Is Not Automatically DUI

One of the most important Georgia cases on this issue is Ferguson v. City of Doraville.

In that case, an officer encountered an intoxicated man asleep in a parked vehicle at a restaurant. The Georgia Court of Appeals expressly stated that it is not a crime merely to occupy a parked automobile while under the influence of alcohol.

That principle remains reflected in the annotations to Georgia’s DUI statute.

This means that police cannot establish the driving element of DUI merely by proving:

• A person was intoxicated
• The person was sitting inside a vehicle
• The vehicle was parked

There must be evidence connecting the accused to driving or actual physical control of a moving vehicle while in the prohibited condition.

However, that evidence does not have to come from an officer actually seeing the person drive.

That is where parked-vehicle DUI cases become more complicated.

Police May Approach a Parked Vehicle Without Immediately Making an Arrest

It is also important to separate an officer’s ability to investigate from the State’s ability to ultimately prove DUI.

Georgia courts recognize different levels of police-citizen encounters.

At the most basic level, an officer generally may approach a person and ask questions without reasonable suspicion so long as the encounter remains consensual and the officer does not restrain the person’s freedom or create the impression that the person is not free to leave.

If the interaction becomes a detention, the Fourth Amendment generally requires reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts.

An arrest requires the higher standard of probable cause.

The Georgia Court of Appeals explained these distinctions in Pierce v. State, a case involving police contact with a person in a parked vehicle.

So the fact that an officer walks up to a parked vehicle does not automatically mean the driver has been arrested or even legally detained.

What happens next depends on what the officer observes and what information is available.

What Could Cause a Parked-Vehicle Encounter to Become a DUI Investigation?

Police may begin looking more closely at possible DUI when circumstances suggest both impairment and recent operation of the vehicle.

Depending on the individual case, officers may consider facts such as:

• Where the vehicle is located
• Whether it is parked normally or unusually
• Whether it is blocking a roadway
• Whether the engine is running
• Whether the transmission is in gear
• Whether the keys are in the ignition
• Whether the person is sitting in the driver’s seat
• Whether anyone else is present
• Whether witnesses saw the vehicle moving
• Whether police received a 911 or dispatch report
• Whether the vehicle appears to have recently been involved in a collision
• Statements made by the occupant
• Signs the person may be impaired
• Field sobriety test observations
• Breath, blood, or other chemical-test evidence where legally obtained

No single fact should automatically be treated as controlling in every case.

Instead, courts review the circumstances as a whole.

Barton DUI Law discusses this broader evidence review in its article on the types of evidence that may be used in a Georgia DUI prosecution. What Evidence Can Be Used Against You in a Georgia DUI Case

Police Do Not Have to See the Vehicle Move

This is one of the most important rules for parked-vehicle DUI cases.

Georgia courts have repeatedly allowed driving or actual physical control to be established through circumstantial evidence.

For example, in Stallings v. State, police found the defendant alone in the driver’s seat of a vehicle that was irregularly parked. The keys were in the ignition. The defendant showed evidence of intoxication and later produced a high breath-alcohol result.

The officer had not personally watched the car moving.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held that the circumstances allowed the factfinder to infer that the defendant had been in actual physical control when the vehicle was moved to that location and had been intoxicated while doing so.

That does not mean every person found behind the wheel of a parked car can be convicted.

It means the State is not automatically defeated simply because no police officer personally witnessed the driving.

Being Asleep Behind the Wheel Can Become Significant Evidence

Sleeping in a parked vehicle presents another common DUI scenario.

Again, sleep itself is not DUI.

But the surrounding facts can become important.

In Hendrix v. State, officers found the defendant asleep behind the wheel. He was alone in the vehicle, the engine was running, the vehicle was in drive, the lights were on, and his foot was on the brake.

Although police did not see the car moving, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence supported an inference that he had been in actual physical control of the vehicle while it was moving and while impaired.

The facts of Hendrix are important because they show why parked-vehicle DUI cases are highly fact specific.

Someone sleeping in the back seat of an inoperable car presents a very different factual situation from someone found unconscious behind the wheel of a running vehicle that is still in drive.

Does the Engine Have to Be Running?

No.

An engine being turned off does not automatically prevent a DUI prosecution in Georgia.

For example, in Patterson v. State, an officer found the defendant slumped over the wheel of a wrecked vehicle that was against a curb and blocking the roadway. The car was not running when the officer arrived, but the key was in the ignition, nobody else was present who appeared to have driven it, and there was substantial evidence of intoxication.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the circumstances permitted the factfinder to infer that the defendant had driven the vehicle to its location while impaired.

Likewise, Georgia case law establishes that a vehicle does not necessarily have to be moving under its own engine power for the actual-physical-control requirement to become relevant. In Savage v. State, for example, the defendant caused an engine-off vehicle to roll and steered it while it moved.

The correct legal question is therefore not simply, “Was the engine running when police arrived?”

The issue is whether the evidence can establish driving or actual physical control of a moving vehicle while the accused was in the prohibited condition.

Does Having the Keys Prove DUI?

Not by itself.

Keys can be significant circumstantial evidence, particularly when they are in the ignition and the individual is alone in the driver’s seat.

But the existence of keys does not eliminate the statutory requirement involving a moving vehicle.

A parked-vehicle DUI case should be evaluated based on the complete circumstances rather than reduced to a rule such as:

“If you have the keys, you are guilty.”

That is not an accurate statement of Georgia law.

The defense may need to investigate when the vehicle arrived, who drove it, when the accused consumed alcohol or other substances, whether the vehicle was capable of moving, what witnesses saw, what the officer’s video shows, and whether there are alternative explanations consistent with the evidence.

What if Someone Else Drove the Vehicle?

That can become a critical factual issue.

Suppose police find an intoxicated person sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle, but another person actually drove the vehicle to that location and then left.

The State still has to prove the required connection between the accused and operation or actual physical control of a moving vehicle while impaired.

Evidence that someone else drove may therefore matter substantially.

On the other hand, simply claiming that another person drove does not automatically resolve the case. Prosecutors and courts may look for evidence supporting or contradicting that explanation.

Possible evidence can include:

• Witness testimony
• Surveillance video
• Body camera footage
• Text messages or phone records where legally obtained
• Receipts and timestamps
• Statements from passengers
• 911 calls
• Location evidence
• Video from nearby businesses
• The position of the vehicle
• Statements made to officers

Barton DUI Law’s discussion of how DUI evidence is evaluated during an initial defense review explains why DUI defense often requires examining multiple pieces of evidence instead of focusing on one observation.

What if the Person Drank Only After Parking?

Timing can also become a major issue.

A person could theoretically drive while sober, park the vehicle, and then consume alcohol afterward.

In that situation, evidence showing intoxication when police arrive does not necessarily prove that the person was impaired while the vehicle was moving.

Georgia courts have encountered disputes over this issue.

In Keller v. State, the defendant argued that he had become intoxicated after parking. But a witness had seen him drive into the gas-station parking lot, and additional evidence allowed the jury to reject his explanation and conclude that he had been intoxicated while driving.

That illustrates an important principle:

The timing of alcohol or drug consumption compared with the timing of the vehicle’s movement can be central to the case.

What Does Police Need Before Making a DUI Arrest?

Investigating and arresting are not the same thing.

Georgia appellate courts have stated that probable cause for a DUI arrest requires more than a mere possibility. The officer needs knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information supporting a probability that the suspect was in actual physical control of a moving vehicle while impaired to the applicable legal degree.

An officer does not have to possess enough evidence at the roadside to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause is a lower standard than the proof required for conviction.

But mere evidence that a person consumed alcohol is also not automatically enough to establish DUI less safe.

Georgia courts have repeatedly explained that the smell or presence of alcohol alone does not prove that someone’s driving ability was impaired.

This difference between suspicion, probable cause, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is one reason the circumstances surrounding a parked-vehicle arrest deserve careful legal review.

The Legality of the Police Encounter Can Also Matter

A defense attorney does not examine only whether the person was impaired.

The investigation itself can matter.

Questions may include:

Was the officer’s initial approach consensual?

When did the encounter become a detention?

If the person was detained, what facts supported reasonable suspicion?

When did the officer develop probable cause for arrest?

What statements were made?

What testing was requested?

What does body-camera or dash-camera footage show?

Do the officer’s written report and video evidence match?

Were searches or seizures legally justified?

Barton DUI Law discusses these issues in more detail in its resource on faulty police procedure in a Georgia DUI case and its overview of fighting Georgia DUI charges.

A parked-vehicle case may create especially important Fourth Amendment questions because police did not necessarily begin the encounter by observing a traffic offense.

Parking the Car Does Not Erase Earlier Driving

There is also an important practical distinction.

If someone realizes that continuing to drive would be unsafe and stops the vehicle, discontinuing the driving is certainly safer than continuing down the road.

But stopping the vehicle does not erase driving that already occurred.

If evidence can establish that the person drove while impaired before parking, the fact that the vehicle was stationary when police arrived does not automatically prevent a DUI charge or conviction.

Conversely, the fact that someone is intoxicated when found in a parked vehicle does not automatically prove that the person drove while intoxicated.

Both statements are necessary for an accurate explanation of Georgia law.

Parked-Vehicle DUI Cases Depend Heavily on the Evidence

There is no legally accurate rule saying that anyone found drunk in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle is guilty of DUI in Georgia.

There is also no accurate rule saying that police cannot make a DUI case because they never saw the vehicle moving.

Georgia law lies between those two extremes.

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 requires driving or actual physical control of a moving vehicle while in a prohibited condition. Mere intoxicated occupancy of a parked car is not itself DUI. At the same time, the State may use circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused previously drove or controlled the vehicle while it was moving and while impaired.

That makes details such as vehicle position, keys, engine status, witness observations, collision evidence, statements, videos, timing, chemical testing, and the presence or absence of another possible driver potentially important.

Anyone arrested after being found in a parked vehicle should avoid assuming either that the case is automatically valid or that it must automatically be dismissed.

The evidence and police procedure need to be reviewed in the context of Georgia law.

Attorney Tom Barton has handled Georgia DUI defense matters since 1991 and represents clients throughout Stockbridge, McDonough, Henry County, Fayette County, Clayton County, Rockdale County, and other communities in the firm’s service area. Anyone facing a parked-vehicle DUI charge can contact Barton DUI Law for a consultation to discuss the specific facts and evidence involved.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not legal advice. DUI cases are fact specific, statutes and case law can change, and anyone facing a criminal charge should obtain advice from a qualified Georgia attorney regarding their individual situation.

A Georgia DUI breath test does not necessarily produce one single number. When the State chooses evidential breath testing, Georgia law requires the operator to request two sequential breath samples. Those samples may produce slightly different alcohol concentration readings, and the fact that they are not identical does not automatically make the test invalid.

What matters is how far apart the results are, whether both samples qualify as adequate, whether the instrument and operator met Georgia’s requirements, and how the readings are used in the criminal and administrative parts of the case.

For someone facing a DUI charge, two different numbers can be confusing. The lower number may carry special legal significance, while a larger gap between the samples can create a separate admissibility issue.

Georgia Requires Two Sequential Breath Samples

Under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392, when the State selects breath testing, two sequential breath samples must be requested. Georgia defines an adequate breath sample as one sufficient for the instrument to produce a printed alcohol concentration analysis.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation Implied Consent program oversees the state’s breath alcohol testing program. The GBI approves evidential testing devices, certifies operators, approves testing methods, and oversees periodic inspections. The GBI currently identifies the Intoxilyzer 9000 as Georgia’s approved evidential breath testing instrument.

That means a proper defense review involves more than looking at two numbers. Barton DUI Law discusses those broader issues in its guide to how breath and blood test results are challenged in DUI defense cases.

The Results Do Not Have to Match Exactly

Georgia law anticipates that two sequential samples may produce different readings. The important statutory limit is 0.020 grams.

For either or both sequential results to be admissible in the State’s case in chief, the two readings may not differ by more than 0.020 grams. The statute also says the lower of the two results is determinative for accusation and indictment purposes and for administrative license suspension purposes.

For example, imagine readings of 0.091 and 0.104. The difference is 0.013. Because that spread is not greater than 0.020, the results satisfy this particular comparison requirement.

Georgia does not require two perfectly identical readings. It sets a limit on how far apart they may be.

What If the Results Differ by More Than 0.020?

A larger difference changes the analysis.

Suppose one sample is 0.082 and the next is 0.106. The difference is 0.024. That exceeds the statutory limit. Under O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392, either or both readings from that sequential pair face an admissibility problem in the State’s case in chief when the difference is greater than 0.020.

Georgia law also limits how many testing series the State may request. It permits no more than two sequential series of two adequate breath samples each. The State therefore cannot simply continue requesting complete series indefinitely in search of another result.

The 2024 Georgia Court of Appeals decision State v. Youn examined how this statutory limit operates. The court focused on whether samples were legally adequate and how many complete testing series had actually been requested.

Why the Lower Reading Matters

When two qualifying readings are different, Georgia law gives the lower result a specific role.

The lower result controls for accusation and indictment purposes and for administrative license suspension purposes. That becomes especially important when the readings fall on opposite sides of a legal threshold.

For most drivers age 21 and older, Georgia’s per se DUI threshold is 0.08. Commercial drivers and drivers under 21 are subject to different thresholds. Barton DUI Law provides a broader explanation of Georgia DUI blood alcohol concentration limits.

Consider an adult noncommercial driver with readings of 0.079 and 0.094. The difference is 0.015, so the pair falls within the 0.020 spread requirement. But the lower reading is below 0.08. Because the statute gives the lower result special significance for charging and administrative purposes, that difference can matter substantially.

It does not necessarily end the entire DUI case. Georgia also recognizes DUI theories that do not depend solely on a per se 0.08 result. Driving evidence, officer observations, field sobriety testing, video, statements, and other evidence may still become part of the prosecution’s case.

Can Both Results Be Used in Court?

When sequential results satisfy the statutory requirements, Georgia appellate courts have recognized that both readings may be admitted. The statute does not require that only the lower number be shown at trial simply because the lower result controls certain charging and administrative decisions.

That distinction matters. The lower result has a specific legal function, but the complete breath test record may still be relevant when evaluating the prosecution’s evidence.

A DUI attorney may therefore examine both results, the timing of each sample, the test printout, instrument messages, and the complete sequence rather than focusing only on the highest number.

Different Numbers Do Not Explain Why They Differed

A difference between two samples does not, by itself, establish why the results were different.

The gap should be considered alongside the timing of the samples, whether both were adequate, whether the instrument reported error messages, and whether the equipment and operator met Georgia’s requirements.

Georgia law requires chemical analysis to be performed according to methods approved by the GBI Division of Forensic Sciences, on a properly functioning instrument, by an individual holding a valid permit. The Georgia rules governing implied consent testing also require approved breath testing instruments to be periodically checked for calibration and operation.

The GBI states that evidential breath testing instruments are inspected once every calendar quarter. A meaningful review therefore goes beyond subtracting one reading from another.

What If One Sample Is Not Adequate?

A different issue arises when the machine produces a printed result for one sample but the second attempt does not produce an adequate sample.

Georgia law defines an adequate sample by whether the instrument produces a printed alcohol concentration analysis. The statute also provides that a later failure or refusal to provide an additional adequate sample does not automatically affect the admissibility of a prior adequate sample.

Georgia appellate courts have addressed cases in which one adequate sample was obtained but another was not. Those situations are legally different from two adequate samples that both produce numerical readings and are more than 0.020 apart.

This distinction is important when reviewing an Intoxilyzer printout. Two different numerical results and one result followed by an insufficient sample should not automatically be treated as the same testing scenario.

Why Test Printouts and Instrument Records Matter

A defense attorney may review materials showing exactly what occurred during the testing sequence. Depending on the case, that can include:

• The breath test printout
• The exact time of each sample
• The instrument identification
• Any error or status messages
• The operator’s permit status
• Periodic inspection documentation
• The number of adequate samples obtained
• Whether another testing series was requested

The GBI’s program is responsible for operator certification, approved testing methods, and periodic instrument inspections. Georgia law also provides that, upon request, full information concerning the State administered chemical test must be made available to the person tested or that person’s attorney.

Barton DUI Law explains the importance of procedural review in its article on faulty police procedure in Georgia DUI cases.

A discrepancy does not automatically guarantee that breath evidence will be excluded. Its significance depends on what happened and which legal requirement is involved.

Breath Results Can Affect the License Case Too

Breath test results may affect more than the criminal DUI prosecution.

Georgia’s statute specifically says the lower of two qualifying readings is determinative for administrative license suspension purposes. That makes the exact pair of numbers important when reviewing administrative action involving driving privileges.

Barton DUI Law’s information on the Georgia DUI 30 Day Rule explains the short deadline that may apply when a driver needs to challenge an administrative license suspension.

The criminal case and the administrative license matter are related, but they are not the same proceeding. A driver should not assume that an issue raised in one automatically resolves the other.

An Independent Chemical Test May Also Matter

Georgia law allows a person who submits to the State’s chemical test to obtain an additional chemical test from qualified personnel of the person’s own choosing and at the person’s expense.

That right can become important when the State’s breath testing is disputed. The statute also provides that the arresting officer must advise the person of the right to additional chemical testing.

Whether that right was properly explained and whether a requested independent test was reasonably accommodated can become another part of the overall defense review.

What Should Be Reviewed When Two Results Are Different?

When two breath readings are different, a complete review may ask:

• Were both samples sequential and legally adequate?
• What was the exact difference between the readings?
• Did the difference exceed 0.020 grams?
• Which result was lower?
• Did the lower result cross an applicable legal threshold?
• Was another testing series requested?
• How many adequate samples were obtained in total?
• Did the instrument produce any error messages?
• Did the operator hold a valid permit?
• Had the instrument received required periodic inspection?
• Was an independent chemical test requested?
• How does the breath evidence compare with video, driving observations, and other evidence?

A breath test printout is evidence to analyze, not a final answer by itself.

Different Breath Results Can Change the Legal Analysis

Georgia law specifically addresses what happens when two sequential breath samples are not identical.

If the readings are within 0.020 grams of each other, the difference alone does not invalidate them. The lower result has special significance for accusation, indictment, and administrative license suspension purposes. If the readings differ by more than 0.020, admissibility becomes a much more important question and the full testing sequence should be reviewed.

Those details can be especially significant when the lower and higher readings fall on different sides of a statutory threshold.

Barton DUI Law reviews Georgia DUI cases involving breath testing, chemical test evidence, and license consequences. If your Intoxilyzer paperwork shows two different results, contact Barton DUI Law to have the testing sequence and the rest of the evidence reviewed before assuming what those numbers mean for your case. Barton DUI Law’s office is located in Stockbridge and represents clients across multiple Georgia counties.

This article is for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Georgia DUI cases are fact specific, and current law should be applied to the individual circumstances of each case.

Most people who hear the word DUI think immediately of alcohol. A driver who has had too much to drink, a breath test, and a number that either crosses a legal threshold or does not. That picture captures a significant portion of Georgia DUI cases, but it leaves out an entire and increasingly common category of charges: DUI involving drugs. Georgia’s DUI statute is written broadly enough to cover impairment from any substance, and understanding how a drug-related DUI differs from an alcohol-related one matters enormously for anyone facing that situation.

This post is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Anyone facing a Georgia DUI charge involving drugs or any other substance should consult a qualified attorney before making any decisions about their case.

Georgia DUI Law Covers Far More Than Alcohol

Under O.C.G.A. 40-6-391, Georgia law prohibits operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, any drug, any combination of alcohol and drugs, or inhalants, to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive. The statute also includes a per se provision covering any controlled substance or marijuana metabolite present in the blood or urine, regardless of whether alcohol is also present. This means a person can be charged with a Georgia DUI without a single drop of alcohol in their system.

The drugs covered are not limited to illegal substances. Prescription medications, over-the-counter drugs, and even herbal supplements that affect a driver’s ability to operate a vehicle safely fall within the scope of the law. A person whose prescription medication causes drowsiness, slowed reaction time, or impaired judgment can be charged with DUI drugs if an officer determines that their driving is less safe as a result. The Georgia Department of Driver Services addresses the scope of DUI drug provisions and their license consequences at dds.georgia.gov/chapter-1-continued.

The Two Types of Georgia Drug DUI Charges

Georgia DUI drug cases are typically charged under one of two legal theories, each with distinct implications for how the prosecution builds its case.

The first is DUI Less Safe, charged under O.C.G.A. 40-6-391(a)(2). Under this theory, the prosecution must prove that the driver was under the influence of a drug to the extent that it was less safe for them to drive. This is a subjective, observation-based standard. Unlike alcohol DUI where a BAC reading above 0.08 creates a per se violation, DUI Less Safe for drugs requires the state to demonstrate actual impairment through the officer’s observations, the driver’s performance on field sobriety tests, admissions made during the stop, and any physical signs noted at the scene. The prosecution does not need to prove a specific drug concentration in the driver’s system to secure a conviction under this theory.

The second is DUI Per Se, charged under O.C.G.A. 40-6-391(a)(6), which applies when any amount of marijuana or a controlled substance is detected in the driver’s blood or urine, including metabolites and derivatives. Under this theory, the presence of the substance alone is sufficient for the charge regardless of whether the driver showed any signs of actual impairment at the time of driving. This is a particularly significant provision for marijuana because cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in blood and urine for days or weeks after use, long after any meaningful impairment has passed.

How Drug DUIs Are Detected Differently

A critical practical difference between alcohol DUI and drug DUI is the method of detection. Alcohol impairment can be measured at the roadside with a breath test. There is no roadside breath test for drugs. When an officer suspects drug impairment, the investigation typically relies heavily on the officer’s training, which may include Drug Recognition Expert certification, and on the driver’s behavior and physical presentation during the stop. Bloodshot eyes, slowed speech, unusual pupil dilation or constriction, impaired coordination on field sobriety tests, and the presence of drug paraphernalia are all factors an officer may note.

If the officer concludes that drug impairment is likely, a blood or urine test is typically requested. These chemical tests are subject to the same implied consent framework that applies in alcohol DUI cases, and refusal carries administrative consequences including license suspension. The results of blood and urine testing are subject to laboratory analysis, chain of custody requirements, and procedural standards that, when not properly followed, can be challenged by an experienced defense attorney.

A Key Difference in License Consequences

One of the most significant practical distinctions between a Georgia alcohol DUI conviction and a drug DUI conviction involves limited driving permits during license suspension. When a person is convicted of DUI involving alcohol, they may be eligible for a limited driving permit that allows them to drive to work, school, or medical appointments during the suspension period. That option is generally not available after a conviction for DUI drugs. A drug DUI conviction typically results in license suspension without a limited permit, meaning the driver faces a complete loss of driving privileges for the suspension period with no hardship exception available.

Attorney Tom Barton’s page on drugs and DUI at bartonduilaw.com/drugs-dui-arrest provides additional information specific to how these cases are handled in the Georgia counties where he practices, including Henry, Fayette, Clayton, Coweta, Rockdale, and surrounding areas.

Why Drug DUI Cases Are Particularly Complex

Drug DUI cases present specific legal challenges that make experienced defense counsel especially important. The absence of a standardized per se impairment level for most substances other than marijuana means that the prosecution’s case often rests substantially on an officer’s subjective assessment. That assessment can be challenged based on the officer’s training and qualifications, the conditions under which the observations were made, the driver’s medical history and any lawful prescriptions, and the reliability of the field sobriety tests as applied to someone who may not have consumed alcohol at all.

The marijuana metabolite issue raises particularly significant questions about the relationship between a positive blood test and actual impairment at the time of driving. A positive result for marijuana metabolites does not establish when the substance was consumed or whether it caused any meaningful impairment at the relevant time. These are questions that an attorney trained in DUI defense can examine and, in appropriate cases, argue effectively.

Attorney Tom Barton has been practicing DUI and criminal defense in Georgia since 1991 and offers free consultations for people facing DUI charges of all kinds throughout the southside Atlanta area and surrounding counties. Contact his office at bartonduilaw.com/contact.

This post is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Georgia DUI law is complex and penalties depend heavily on the specific facts of each case. Anyone facing a drug-related DUI charge in Georgia should consult a qualified attorney before making any legal decisions.