Attorney Greg Willis secured a significant victory before the Georgia Court of Appeals when the court reversed John McDavid’s DUI convictions after concluding that the State failed to carry its burden of proving that his initial detention was lawful. The July 2, 2026 decision in McDavid v. State, Case No. A26A0355, shows why an effective DUI defense can begin before field sobriety exercises, breath testing, or an arrest ever occurs.
The first two Alpharetta police officers who interacted with McDavid did not testify at the suppression hearing. The Georgia Court of Appeals determined that testimony from a DUI officer who arrived later could not fill the evidentiary gap concerning what happened at the time of the original detention. The court reversed the denial of McDavid’s motion to suppress and reversed his convictions.
For people facing DUI charges in Atlanta, Georgia, the decision reinforces a critical constitutional protection: the State must establish that a detention was lawful when that detention is properly challenged.
2025 Atlanta's Best - Defense Law Firm
BadAss Attorney
Best Lawyers In America
10 Consecutive Years Selected to Super Lawyers
AVVO Client's Choice
Best Lawyers Best Law Firms
The Case Began With a Single-Vehicle Accident
The case arose from a July 21, 2023 single-car accident involving John McDavid. According to the appellate decision, McDavid’s SUV became immobilized after leaving the roadway and entering a median. Two Alpharetta Police Department officers were already at the scene when Sergeant Dustin Bak, who was assigned to DUI enforcement, arrived.
After speaking with McDavid, Bak observed evidence that he associated with alcohol impairment. His testimony included the odor of alcohol, slurred speech, difficulty explaining the accident, and problems with balance. McDavid acknowledged having consumed drinks earlier.
Bak conducted roadside evaluations and administered a roadside breath test. McDavid was arrested and later underwent breath testing on an Intoxilyzer 9000.
A Fulton County judge found McDavid guilty of DUI per se, DUI less safe, and failure to maintain lane/improper lane change.
The appeal did not simply focus on whether the later DUI evidence appeared incriminating.
Greg Willis challenged something that happened earlier: Was McDavid lawfully detained before Sergeant Bak began his DUI investigation?
That issue proved decisive.
The Winning DUI Defense Issue Started Before the Arrest
People often think a DUI investigation begins when an officer asks a driver to perform field sobriety exercises or provide a breath sample.
Constitutionally, the critical event can occur earlier.
McDavid alleged in his motion to suppress that the first two officers would not allow him to leave on foot or arrange a ride. He alleged that they told him to remain at the scene and return to his vehicle.
Those allegations raised a Fourth Amendment issue.
Georgia law recognizes different levels of police-citizen encounters. During a consensual first-tier encounter, a person generally remains free to leave. A police encounter can become a second-tier detention when an officer uses physical force or a show of authority under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not believe that he or she was free to leave.
Once that detention occurs, the legal analysis changes.
The question is not whether police discovered evidence of DUI later.
The critical question is:
What facts justified the detention at the moment it occurred?
The First Two Officers Did Not Testify
This was the central evidentiary problem for the prosecution.
Sergeant Bak testified about what he personally observed after reaching the accident scene. Yet he was not present during McDavid’s initial interaction with the first two officers.
Neither of those officers testified at the suppression hearing.
That left critical questions about the initial encounter without testimony from the officers who participated in it:
- What did the officers observe before the alleged detention?
- What did they say to McDavid?
- When, if at all, did the encounter become a detention?
- What specific facts did they possess at that time?
- How long had McDavid been at the scene before Bak arrived?
- What justified preventing McDavid from leaving?
The appellate court found that the State could not simply rely on what Bak observed later to establish what existed at the earlier point in time.
Greg Willis has been successful at defending DUI cases (over 93.1% without a conviction)
He's the only lawyer in the State of Georgia to ever be recognized for all three of these accomplishments.
Received the Samurai Lawyer Award for having gone to jail for a total of 4 days in order to save his own client
Received the BadAss Lawyer Award for the biggest impact of all DUI lawyers in DUI defense in the country
Received the vote of Georgia Lawyers as a Superlawyer in DUI Law for 10 straight consecutive years
The State Had the Burden of Proving the Detention Was Lawful
This burden mattered.
Under OCGA § 17-5-30(b), once a defendant properly challenges an allegedly unlawful search or seizure through a motion to suppress, the State bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of the challenged police conduct.
The Court of Appeals explained that a second-tier encounter requires specific and articulable facts that, together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the detention.
Bak could testify about what he saw when he arrived.
He could not establish when the first officers detained McDavid or precisely what they knew at that moment.
The appellate court concluded that relying on Bak’s later observations would require speculation about whether the same circumstances existed when the initial detention occurred. That was not enough for the State to satisfy its burden.
Police Cannot Automatically Use Later Evidence to Justify an Earlier Detention
The sequence of events can change the outcome of a DUI case.
Consider a driver who is detained by one officer. A DUI officer arrives later and notices an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, poor balance, or another alleged sign of impairment.
Those later observations may become evidence in a DUI prosecution.
They do not automatically establish that the earlier detention was constitutional.
Reasonable suspicion is evaluated based on the circumstances that existed when the detention occurred.
That is why Greg Willis’s victory in this case matters to DUI defendants across Atlanta and Georgia. A defense attorney must reconstruct the encounter from its beginning rather than accept the arresting officer’s final conclusions as the entire story.
That investigation may include:
- Body camera recordings
- Dash camera video
- Dispatch and CAD records
- 911 recordings
- Police reports
- Accident reports
- Witness testimony
- Officer arrival times
- Communications between officers
- Breath-testing records
- Jail records and timestamps
Small differences in timing can have major constitutional consequences.
Why Stadnisky v. State Did Not Control the Result
The Court of Appeals compared McDavid’s case with Stadnisky v. State, an earlier Georgia DUI decision involving an officer who did not testify.
The facts were materially different.
In Stadnisky, a witness testified about reckless driving, a collision, the defendant’s behavior afterward, and circumstances surrounding the encounter with police. The case therefore contained evidence concerning what was happening during the relevant period.
There was also another distinction.
The appellate court explained that McDavid’s accident did not involve another vehicle or an injured person. The court discussed OCGA § 40-6-270 and OCGA § 40-6-274 in determining that the circumstances differed from a collision in which Georgia law independently required the motorist to remain at the scene.
The State still needed evidence establishing a lawful basis for McDavid’s detention.
The appellate court concluded that the State did not meet that burden.
Greg has truly mastered his craft. His preparation is second to none and his confidence helps reduce the nervousness and anxiety his clients face. He is a real life version of Harvey Specter and I highly recommend him.”
- Travis
Greg and his team are absolutely incredible. Greg explained everything to me in detail, as this is the first ever time I have been arrested. Regular updates throughout the process which allowed me to get on with everyday life. 200% I would recommend Greg and his team to anyone with a DUI case."
- James Hellens
Mr Willis is the best in the business. He knows the law inside and out. I was in a serious jam and Greg got my dui reduced to a reckless driving. This man will fight for you every step of the way."
- Anonymous
The Motion to Suppress Changed the Case
The result was substantial.
The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the motion to suppress and reversed McDavid’s convictions. The published decision identifies Greg Willis as counsel for McDavid on appeal.
This result illustrates why motions to suppress can play such a powerful role in Georgia DUI defense.
A DUI case may contain a breath-test result, field sobriety evidence, body camera footage, and officer testimony. Those facts do not eliminate the need to examine how police obtained the evidence.
A skilled Atlanta DUI attorney should examine the constitutional foundation of the investigation as well as the evidence gathered after the detention.
If a detention violated the Fourth Amendment and evidence resulted from that detention, a successful suppression challenge can fundamentally alter the prosecution.
Body Camera Footage May Not Answer Every Question
Body camera evidence played a role in McDavid’s case, but it did not resolve the missing timeline.
Bak’s body camera showed circumstances after he arrived, including another officer interacting with McDavid. What it could not establish was everything that happened before Bak reached the scene.
This distinction is valuable for anyone facing a DUI charge in Atlanta, Georgia.
Video evidence should be examined alongside the entire chronology. A Georgia DUI lawyer may need to compare recordings with dispatch information, reports, timestamps, and testimony to determine when a consensual encounter became a detention and what officers knew at that precise time.
What This DUI Appeal Victory Means for Georgia Drivers
The McDavid decision does not mean that every DUI case involving several officers will lead to suppression.
It does mean that apparently damaging DUI evidence should not end the defense investigation.
A breath-test result cannot retroactively establish reasonable suspicion for an earlier detention.
Evidence gathered by a later-arriving officer does not automatically establish what another officer knew minutes earlier.
Every stage of a DUI investigation deserves scrutiny.
If you have been arrested for DUI in Atlanta, one of the questions your attorney should investigate is when your freedom to leave was first restricted and whether the State has evidence establishing a lawful reason for that detention.
Speak With an Atlanta DUI Attorney About Your Case
A DUI arrest can put your driver’s license, freedom, finances, employment, and reputation at risk. The evidence may look difficult to overcome, but the police report does not necessarily reveal every legal issue in the case.
Willis Law Firm and attorney Greg Willis examine DUI cases from the first police interaction through the arrest, chemical testing, court proceedings, and, when necessary, appeal. Greg Willis’s successful representation of John McDavid before the Georgia Court of Appeals demonstrates why careful constitutional analysis can matter even when the prosecution has substantial DUI evidence.
If you have been charged with DUI in Atlanta, Georgia, contact Willis Law Firm for a free consultation. Your defense should address not only what evidence police collected, but whether the Constitution permitted them to obtain that evidence.