A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals underscores a critical point in DUI cases: the State must justify every stage of a police encounter, including the very first detention. In McDavid v. The State, decided July 2, 2026, the Court reversed DUI convictions arising from a single-car accident because the State never produced the officers who first restricted the driver’s freedom to leave the scene.

The facts were straightforward. On the night of July 21, 2023, John McDavid’s vehicle left the roadway and became stuck in a median in Alpharetta. Two Alpharetta officers arrived first and spoke with him at the driver’s window. A short time later, Sergeant Dustin Bak of the DUI enforcement unit arrived, took over the investigation, observed clear signs of impairment, conducted field evaluations, arrested McDavid, and obtained a breath test on the Intoxilyzer 9000. McDavid was charged with DUI per se, DUI less safe, and failure to maintain lane. He moved to suppress, arguing that the original two officers had unlawfully detained him by refusing to let him leave on foot or call a ride and by ordering him to remain on scene and return to his vehicle. The trial court denied the motion, finding the initial contact was a first-tier encounter that required no suspicion and that Sergeant Bak’s subsequent investigation was properly supported. After a stipulated bench trial, McDavid was convicted.

The Court of Appeals reversed. The majority held that the State failed to meet its burden under OCGA § 17-5-30 to prove the detention was lawful. McDavid had specifically alleged that the first officers prevented him from leaving. A citizen’s ability to walk away is the defining feature of a first-tier, consensual encounter. Once officers use a show of authority that would make a reasonable person believe he is not free to leave, the encounter becomes a second-tier detention that requires reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Because the State called only Sergeant Bak, who arrived later and could not describe what the first officers said or observed, the trial court had no evidence from which it could determine whether the initial detention was justified. Bak’s later observations of intoxication could not retroactively supply the missing justification for the earlier restraint. The Court also noted that a single-vehicle accident that causes no injury to another person or property does not independently require a driver to remain under Georgia’s hit-and-run statutes.

The practical lesson is clear. Even when a driver is involved in a crash and later shows signs of impairment, the State still must account for the actions of the first officers who restricted that driver’s movement. If those officers ordered the person to stay and the State cannot produce them at a suppression hearing, the entire investigation that followed may be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful detention. This is not a technicality. It is a direct application of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that seizures be justified at their inception.

For anyone facing DUI charges after a traffic stop or accident investigation, the details of the initial contact matter. Who arrived first? What was said? Was the driver free to leave? Those questions can determine whether the evidence the State intends to use at trial is admissible at all. The McDavid decision is a reminder that the burden remains on the State to answer them with competent evidence.

If you or someone you know has been arrested for DUI in the Atlanta area, the specific facts of the stop and the sequence of officers involved can make a significant difference in the outcome. Our office reviews these issues carefully in every case.  We are available to discuss your DUI case in a free confidential consultation.