The State v. Warren, 338 Ga. App. 849

On June 20, 2014, Warren was stopped after a sergeant observed speeding and improper passing; officer observed signs of intoxication and Warren produced a positive preliminary breath test (PBT) on a handheld Alco-Sensor, then refused a blood test.
Warren was charged with DUI (less safe) and other traffic offenses and moved to suppress, seeking exclusion of the PBT results among other relief.
At the suppression hearing, the deputy who administered the handheld Alco-Sensor testified but, when asked whether the device was authorized by the GBI Division of Forensic Sciences, defense counsel objected to the prosecutor’s question as leading and the trial court sustained the objection.
The deputy’s testimony did not establish whether the device was approved or certified by the Division of Forensic Sciences; his answers were equivocal (e.g., “I would imagine GBI”) and he said he was unsure about approvals/certifications.
The trial court excluded the PBT results for lack of foundation that the device met statutory approval/certification requirements and denied the State’s motion to reopen the evidence; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PBT results were admissible absent testimony that the device was approved/certified by the GBI Division of Forensic Sciences	State: objected question was not improperly barred; the prosecutor should be allowed to ask leading foundational questions to show device authorization	Warren: State failed to lay statutory foundation that device and operator met Division of Forensic Sciences’ requirements	Court: Affirmed exclusion — State failed to proffer what the officer would have testified, and record lacks proof the device was GBI‑authorized, so foundation was inadequate
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the State’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing to elicit the foundational testimony anew	State: should be allowed to reopen to obtain the necessary foundation by asking the previously objected question	Warren: suppression hearing was the proper time to develop foundation; reopening unnecessary and would invite repeated re-openings	Court: No abuse of discretion — trial court reasonably declined to reopen given timing and lack of a proffer showing what additional testimony would prove

Brooks v. State, 285 Ga. App. 624 (appellate review construing evidence in favor of sustaining suppression rulings)
Hall v. State, 202 Ga. 619 (refusal to reverse where party fails to proffer expected testimony)
Williams v. Ricks, 152 Ga. App. 555 (appeal rejected where record lacks proffer of excluded testimony)
Murphy v. Milo, 272 Ga. App. 200 (no reversal when appellant failed to proffer evidence showing harm from exclusion)
Carruth v. State, 267 Ga. 221 (trial court’s denial to reopen evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)