Judge denies motion to suppress in Donnie Harris DUI case after officer body‑cam hearing

Judge Tammy Long Hayward denied a motion to suppress evidence in the State of Georgia v. Donnie Harris after a contested hearing on June 5, 2025, in Courtroom 304 of the Clayton County Justice Center.

The ruling followed testimony from Sergeant Jamelle Stiggers of the Clayton County Sheriff’s Office and admission of Stiggers’s body‑worn camera into the record by stipulation. The judge said the totality of the officer’s observations—traffic violation, the detection of alcohol odor, the defendant’s speech and demeanor, and the defendant’s request for a blood test—provided probable cause for the investigation and arrest.

At the hearing, Sergeant Jamelle Stiggers described approaching the vehicle and later detecting an odor of alcohol after leaning toward the driver to explain a citation. “I was able to notice the odor of alcohol coming from this person,” Stiggers testified. Stiggers said he offered a portable breath test but the defendant refused and instead asked for blood; Stiggers then read the state’s implied‑consent notice and the defendant agreed to a blood draw. Stiggers also described weather and traffic conditions the night of the stop and explained safety reasons for not conducting on‑road field sobriety maneuvers.

Defense attorney Owen Lynch argued the officer never developed probable cause beyond a traffic violation and a smell of alcohol, saying the officer “did no additional investigation that would establish probable cause” before arrest. Lynch pointed to the absence of standardized field sobriety testing at the scene and argued the refusal of a portable breath test cannot be used against the defendant. The defense asked the court to suppress evidence obtained after the arrest.

The prosecution (state) responded that the officer’s observations and the defendant’s statements and behavior, viewed together, satisfied probable cause requirements. The state emphasized Stiggers’s training, the detection of alcohol odor, the defendant’s slurred speech and agitation, and the defendant’s agreement to a blood test after being read the implied‑consent notice.

Judge Hayward concluded the officer had an objectively reasonable basis to continue the investigation and to arrest. “At this point, this court is going to deny the motion to suppress,” the judge said. The court admitted the body‑worn camera into evidence and denied the defense motion to suppress; the hearing ended without suppression, and the case will proceed on the remaining charges.

The judge’s ruling preserves the state’s evidence gathered after the stop; the transcript shows the parties may move next toward trial scheduling and pretrial matters.