TUNALI v. State, 311 Ga. App. 844

Tunali was stopped on an interstate after failing to stop at a commercial vehicle inspection station; the officer detected an odor of alcohol and administered an alcosensor test after Tunali admitted drinking eight hours earlier; the alcosensor test returned positive for alcohol; passenger was allowed to drive the vehicle to the inspection station while Tunali was cited for DPS rule violations; Tunali moved to suppress evidence from the stop and the trial court denied the motion; this Court granted interlocutory review for consideration of suppression issues; on appeal the relevant facts are undisputed and the court reviews de novo on legal issues only.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial traffic stop was justified.	State showed officer authority based on DPS rules.	Rules not in record; APA compliance questioned.	Stop supported by officer authority and safety inspections; no error.
Whether an implied consent warning was required for the alco-sensor test.	Warning required under OCGA § 40-5-153.	Alco-sensor tests detect presence, not concentration; warning not required.	Implied consent warning not required for alco-sensor test; admissible.

Ponce v. State, 279 Ga.App. 207 (2006) (unpromulgated rules cannot be judicially noticed; DPS authority cited)
Hines v. State, 214 Ga.App. 476 (1994) (stop based on observed traffic offense; burdens of proof on State)
Lucas v. State, 284 Ga.App. 450 (2007) (State must prove basis for reasonable suspicion; reliance on unproven ordinance inappropriate)
Solano-Rodriguez v. State, 295 Ga.App. 896 (2009) (DPS authority and rule adoption discussed; presence of drugs/alcohol testing context)
Taylor v. State, 305 Ga.App. 748 (2010) (DPS transportation rulebook and authority to stop for safety inspections)
Keenan v. State, 263 Ga.569 (1993) (no implied consent warning for alco-sensor tests)
Turrentine v. State, 176 Ga.App. 145 (1985) (implied consent warnings not required for certain alcohol tests)