After a bench trial ending in a conviction for theft, DUI, drug possession, and other offenses, Jerry Lee Wilson appeals the triаl court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We find no error and affirm.
On review of the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider all the evidence of record, including evidence introduced at trial.
Jackson v. State,
So viewed, the record shows that on October 22, 2009, police pulled Wilson over for a number of traffic violations, including three nonwоrking lights and three failures to maintain lane, including crossing the centerline for up to five seconds. Wilson was driving the car, and he hаd one passenger. In the back seat behind the driver’s seat, the lead officer noticed a grocery basket bearing the name “Food Lion.” When the officer asked Wilson for his wallet, he noticed that Wilson took an unusually long time to retrieve it and that Wilson’s droopy eyes and slurred speech might be the result of being *384 under the influence of drugs (Wilson did not smell of alcohоl).
Wilson eventually produced his insurance card but could not locate his driver’s license. The officer then asked Wilson to step out of the vehicle. When Wilson did so, the officer noticed that Wilson swayed and had dilated pupils. The officer then asked Wilson whether he had any drugs or weapons inside the car. When Wilson said that he did not, the officer asked for consent to search, which Wilson granted. In the hand basket, the officer found two grocery bags, each of which contained a сontainer of ice cream, as well as a four-pack of lithium batteries lying underneath one of the bags. On request, Wilson produced the Food Lion receipt, which showed that Wilson had paid for the ice cream but not the batteries. When аsked, Wilson confirmed that he had purchased only the ice cream, and could not say why the batteries were in the car. Wilson also told the first officer that he had taken Lortab three hours before being stopped.
While the first officer was searching the car, a second officer who was qualified to administer field sobriety tests conducted a horizontal gazе nystagmus (HGN) test on Wilson. The second officer was able to obtain the first two signs, both of which suggested intoxication, but was unable to сomplete the test because Wilson could not keep his eyes open. The officer could not administer the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn tests because Wilson suffered from a disability. Based on Wilson’s inability to complete the HGN test, the seсond officer concluded that Wilson was not a safe driver. After consultation, the first officer placed Wilson under arrest and advised him of his implied consent rights. On the driver’s seat, the second officer found Wilson’s wallet, which contained a small plastic bag with two blue pills in it. When asked, Wilson said that the pills were Xanax and that he did not have a prescription for them. After bеing placed in the patrol car, Wilson consented to having his blood drawn. The blood later tested positive for Xanax and Lortab. The manager of the Food Lion store confirmed that the store sold the kind of batteries found in Wilson’s car. The triаl court denied the motion to suppress on grounds including that the officers’ traffic stop was authorized, that Wilson gave cоnsent to search, and that the officers had probable cause to arrest him for DUI.
1. Wilson first contends that the officers did nоt have authority to conduct the initial search that produced the hand basket and batteries. We disagree.
“[0]ne of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Hunter v. State,
*385
Hеre, both officers, who were the only two witnesses at the single evidentiary hearing in the case, testified that Wilson consentеd to the first officer’s search, and Wilson has not contended that this consent was the “tainted product of an initial pretеxtual stop,”
Hunter,
2. The trial court also did not err when it denied Wilson’s motion as to the search after his arrest for DUI, which yielded the pills found in his wallet.
(a) The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Wilson’s arrest for DUI was lawful. “A witness who satisfactorily shows that he had opportunity to observe, and did observe, the condition of another, may testify whether that person was under the influence of intoxicants and the extеnt thereof, stating the facts upon which the opinion is based.”
Lawrence v. State,
(b) “A consent search is one undertaken with knowledge and without objection by the defendant. Once consent is legally obtained, it continues until it is either revokеd or withdrawn.
Bell v. State,
Judgment affirmed.