
    Argued and submitted August 29, 1991,
    reversed and remanded September 16, 1992,
    reconsideration denied November 18, 1992,
    petition for review pending 1993
    STATE OF OREGON, Appellant, v. MARK CARLYLE WOODLEY, Respondent.
    
    (CRO-0357-16; CA A67389)
    837 P2d 562
    Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    John P. Daugirda, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Roost & Daugirda, Eugene.
    Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

The state appeals an order, ORS 138.060(3), granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of field sobriety and breath tests in this driving under the influence of intoxicants case. We reverse and remand.

Officer Chapman, suspecting that defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants, stopped him. The officer asked defendant to perform field sobriety tests, but did not warn him of the consequences of refusal. Defendant performed the tests anyway. On the basis of his performance, the officer concluded that he was under the influence of intoxicants and arrested him. Defendant took a breath test after his arrest.

In State v. Trenary, 114 Or App 608, 836 P2d 739 (1992), we held that the advice of consequences is intended to encourage a driver to take the field sobriety tests and is not a precondition to giving the tests. The officer properly relied on the results in forming his decision to arrest defendant. The trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the field sobriety and breath tests.

Reversed and remanded.  