Antwanez Guyton

Name:
Guyton, Antwanez Deshawn

Date of Booking:
01/28/2026

Reason(s) For Booking:
PROBATION VIOLATION (WHEN PROBATION TERMS ARE ALTERED) FOR FINGERPRINTABLE CHARGE – MISDEMEANOR 

HIT AND RUN; DUTY OF DRIVER TO STOP AT OR RETURN TO SCENE OF ACCIDENT

DUI – DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL

TRAFFIC/MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENSE 

Officer’s Narrative:
[Please note: The following is a direct transcription from the official initial incident report. The Georgia Gazette does not fix any spelling or grammatical errors that may exist. Any changes or redactions made by our staff are placed inside brackets. Some errors may exist. All subjects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The topics discussed may be sensitive to some readers. Discretion is advised.]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2026, at approximately 1913 hours, I responded to a call at the direction of the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office in reference to a hit-and-run accident. The reporting party, Ms. [VICTIM #1], advised that her rental vehicle, a gray 2026 Chevrolet Trailblazer, Georgia tag #[REDACTED], had been rear-ended.

Upon arrival, I made contact with Ms. [VICTIM #1], who stated she was stopped in the turn lane of Columbus Road preparing to make a right turn onto Mercer University Drive when a black 2014 Dodge Avenger, Georgia tag #[REDACTED], driven by a black male, struck the rear of her vehicle and fled the scene. Ms. [VICTIM #1] advised that she followed the suspect vehicle a short distance and observed it turn into the Summer Park Apartments, located just down the street from the crash location. Ms. [VICTIM #1] also provided a photograph of the suspect vehicle.

After collecting Ms. [VICTIM #1]’s information, I responded to the Summer Park Apartments to attempt to locate the vehicle. I located a black Dodge Avenger parked in front of Building [REDACTED]. The vehicle was parked partially on the grass and had visible damage consistently with the damage sustained in the collision involving Ms. [VICTIM #1]’s vehicle. While standing outside the vehicle, I observed three miniature bottles of liquor in plain view in the center console; two of the bottles appeared to have been opened and consumed.

I canvassed the surrounding apartments attempting to locate the driver. During the canvas, I made contact with Ms. [VICTIM #2], who stated the vehicle belonged to her and that her brother, later identified as Antwanez Guyton, had been using the vehicle earlier. Ms. [VICTIM #2] advised there were only two keys to the vehicle—one in her possession and the other in Mr. Guyton’s possession. Ms. [VICTIM #2] agreed to respond to the vehicle location to view the damage and assist in locating her brother.

Ms. [VICTIM #2] arrived on scene and stated the damage to the vehicle was new. She identified her brother, Antwanez Guyton, by name and date of birth. I ran Mr. Guyton’s information through GCIC/NCIC and learned he had an active warrant. Ms. [VICTIM #2] informed me that Mr. Guyton resided in apartment #[REDACTED].

The District Four Sergeant and I knocked loudly on the door and windows of apartment #[REDACTED]; however, no one initially responded. I asked Ms. [VICTIM #2] if she would attempt to contact her brother. After several attempts, Mr. Guyton eventually opened the door. Upon contact, I immediately detected a strong odor of alcoholic beverage emitting from Mr. Guyton’s breath and person. I observed Mr. Guyton to be unsteady on his feet, slurring his speech, and having extreme difficulty following simple directions.

Due to Mr. Guyton’s lack of cooperation, his attempts to retreat into the residence, and his active warrant, Mr. Guyton was detained. Based on his extreme level of intoxication, and my training and experience with over 25 years in law enforcement, I determined Mr. Guyton was not capable of safely performing Standardized Field Sobriety Evaluations.

I read Mr. Guyton his Miranda rights, which he stated he understood and agreed to speak with me. Mr. Guyton made several statements that were inconsistent and did not make sense. He initially denied driving the vehicle. Ms. [VICTIM #2] stated that only two keys existed for the vehicle and that Mr. Guyton had possession of the second key. Ms. [VICTIM #2] asked Mr. Guyton for the key, and he advised it was in his bedroom. Ms. [VICTIM #2] retrieved the key from the bedroom.

I asked Mr. Guyton if anyone other than himself had driven the vehicle that day, and he stated no. Mr. Guyton continued making statements that were inconsistent and untruthful. With Ms. [VICTIM #2]’s consent, I looked inside the vehicle and confirmed the presence of the miniature liquor bottles previously observed. I also observed a cellular phone on the front passenger seat connected to a charging cable. Ms. [VICTIM #2] stated the phone belonged to Mr. Guyton, which Mr. Guyton later confirmed.

Mr. Guyton eventually admitted to driving the vehicle but denied striking another vehicle. During the interaction, Mr. Guyton repeatedly asked the same questions multiple times, further indicating impairment. Based on the totality of the circumstances, I had probable cause to believe Antwanez Guyton was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, less safe to drive.

My probable cause was based on the following observations and facts: the suspect vehicle was positively identified by the victim as the vehicle involved in the hit-and-run crash and was located within one mile of the collision; the vehicle had fresh damage consistent with the reported crash; the suspect vehicle was located at the apartment complex the victim observed the driver enter immediately after the collision, in front of the building where the suspect lived in, the suspect was identified as the only person with access to the vehicle at the time of the crash, as confirmed by the vehicle owner who stated there were only two keys to the vehicle and the suspect had possession of the second key; the suspect later admitted no one else had driven the vehicle.

Additionally, I observed multiple indicators of alcohol impairment including a strong odor of alcoholic beverage emitting from the suspect’s breath and person, slurred speech, unsteady balance, inability to follow simple instructions, repetitive questioning, and confusion. Open containers of alcoholic beverages were observed in plain view inside the suspect vehicle, and a cellular phone belonging to the suspect was located inside the vehicle, indicating recent operation.

Due to the suspect’s extreme level of intoxication, lack of cooperation, and inability to stand or follow directions, Standardized Field Sobriety Evaluations could not be safely or reliably conducted. Based on my training and experience, and the totality of the circumstances, I determined the suspect was less safe to drive.

The suspect was read Georgia’s Implied Consent Notice and refused a state-administered chemical test of his blood.

Mr. Guyton was transported to the Bibb County Law Enforcement Center on the outstanding warrant and was additionally charged with DUI– Less Safe (Alcohol)– Refusal, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, and Open Container.

[End of Narrative]