Michael Levins was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration while under the age of 21, possessing alcohol while under the age of 21, and speeding. He filed a motion to suppress the results of a state-administered blood test. The trial court granted the motion because the arresting officer gave an implied consent notice to Levins that did not match the exact language of OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) (1). The state appeals from the court’s order granting the motion to suppress the results of the blood test.
1. Levins’ motion to dismiss the state’s direct appeal is without merit. The state is authorized to appeal directly from the trial court’s order suppressing the blood test results allegedly obtained in violation of OCGA § 40-5-67.1. See OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (4);
State v. Strickman,
2. The state asserts the trial court erred in ruling that the blood test results must be suppressed because the officer did not give an implied consent notice exactly tracking the language of OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) (1). At the time of the ruling, the trial court relied on opinions from this Court interpreting the statute as requiring an exact reading of the notice. See
State v. Halstead,
A reviewing court applies the law as it exists at the time its opinion is rendered, rather than the law prevailing at the time the ruling under review was rendered.
State v. Martin,
“Where a statute governs only procedure of the courts, including the rules of evidence, it is to be given retroactive effect absent an expressed contrary intention.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Holsey v. State,
The Supreme Court found that a prior amendment to OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) “modifies the scope of evidence which may be offered in a DUI trial. It does not affect the manner or degree of punishment and does not alter any substantive rights conferred on [the suspect]
*741
by law. [Cits.]”
State v. Martin,
3. Here, the police officer omitted two words from the implied consent notice he read to Levins pursuant to OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) (1). He omitted the word “Georgia” from the second sentence of the statutory notice, which provides: “ Tf you refuse this testing, your Georgia driver’s license or privilege to drive on the highways of this state will be suspended for a minimum period of one year.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) (1). He also omitted the word “own” in the next to the last sentence of the notice, which provides: “After first submitting to the required state tests, you are entitled to additional chemical tests of your blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substances at your own expense and from qualified personnel of your own choosing.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) (1).
Under the amended OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b), the officer’s reading of the implied consent notice was sufficient. The officer read the notice in its entirety. The two words omitted did not change the substance of the notice. We note that because Levins is a Georgia resident with a Georgia license, this case is materially distinguishable from
Deckard v. State,
Because the notice given to Levins was read in its entirety and the two omitted words did not change the substance of the notice required by OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b), the blood test results are admissible. Although the trial court’s grant of the motion to suppress was based on cases interpreting the law as it existed at the time of the ruling, the change in the applicable law since that ruling requires that we reverse the trial court’s ruling.
Judgment reversed.