With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and may accept or reject any portion of the testimony.” (punctuation omitted)). 16 Although Taffar was trained in field-sobriety tests at the time of the suppression hearing, he had not yet received such training when he arrested Blanchard. As a result, no field-sobriety tests were performed in this case. 17 See Ewumi, 315 Ga. App. at 657-58 (1); Sanders, 274 Ga. App. at 397-98 (notingthat“[i]f the members of this Court had been sitting as the trier of fact, we might well have found that the officers had probable cause to arrest based on several indicia of impairment,” hut affirming the trial court’s finding that there was insufficient probable cause to support a DUI arrest). 18 Ellison, 271 Ga. App. at 904 (6); see, e.g., Temples v. State, 228 Ga. App. 228, 231 (491 SE2d 444) (1997) (<HOLDING>). 19 Ellison, 271 Ga. App. at 904 (6); see also

A: holding that there was sufficient probable cause for the defendants dui arrest when the evidence showed that the officer smelled the odor of alcohol on the defendants breath the defendants eyes were bloodshot and watery and his breath test was positive for alcohol
B: holding that there was insufficient probable cause for a dui arrest when inter alia there was testimony that the defendants eyes were bloodshot and watery
C: holding that the trial court was authorized to conclude that probable cause supported an arrest for dui when evidence showed that the officer detected the odor of alcohol coming from the defendants vehicle the defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol her breath tested positive for the presence of alcohol her speech was slurred and her eyes were red and watery and she failed the oneleg stand field sobriety test
D: holding that there was insufficient probable cause for a dui arrest when inter alia although the defendants eyes were bloodshot and watery there was no evidence that her eyes were glassy or unfocused
A.