In Miller v. State, 238 Ga. App. 61, 62 (1) (516 SE2d 838) (1999), a case where the only testimony that the warning had been read was the officer's, we held that the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress the test results because "the state's only evidence concerning the implied consent warning was the officer's conclusory statement that he read a warning contained on a card." The Court concluded that absent "any further evidence specifying the substance of the warning allegedly given, the state failed to meet its burden of proving compliance with the implied consent notice requirements." Id.