In State v. Homan (2000), 89 Ohio St. 3d 421, 2000 Ohio 212, 732 N.E.2d 952, "the arresting officer, admitted to having not complied with established police procedure when administering to Homan the HGN and walk-and-turn tests. The court nevertheless agreed that the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding Homan's arrest supported a finding of probable cause." Id. at 427. The court further held that "probable cause to arrest does not necessarily have to be based, in whole or in part, upon a suspect's poor performance on one or more of these tests. The totality of the facts and circumstances can support a finding of probable cause to arrest even where no field sobriety tests were administered or where the test results must be excluded." Id. The Supreme Court required police to have administered field sobriety tests in strict compliance with standardized testing procedures in order for the results to serve as evidence of probable cause to arrest. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d at P1 of syllabus. This holding was eliminated, however, when the legislature added the following provisions to the OVI statute: "(b) if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted field sobriety tests that were in effect at the time the tests were administered, including, but not limited to, any testing standards then in effect that were set by the national highway traffic safety administration NHTSA, all of the following apply: "(i) The officer may testify concerning the results of the field sobriety test so administered. "(ii) The prosecution may introduce the results of the field sobriety test so administered as evidence in any proceedings in the criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding. "(iii) If testimony is presented or evidence is introduced under division (D)(4)(b)(i) or (ii) of this section and if the testimony or evidence is admissible under the Rules of Evidence, the court shall admit the testimony or evidence and the trier of fact shall give it whatever weight the trier of fact considers to be appropriate. "(c) Division (D)(4)(b) of this section does not limit or preclude a court, in its determination of whether the arrest of a person was supported by probable cause or its determination of any other matter in a criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding of a type described in that division, from considering evidence or testimony that is not otherwise disallowed by division (D)(4)(b) of this section." R.C. 4511.19 (D)(4) (emphasis added). First, we point out that the totality of the facts and circumstances can support a finding of probable cause to arrest even where no field sobriety tests were administered or where the test results should have been excluded for lack of compliance with certain standards. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d at 427. In Homan, the Supreme Court stated that probable cause existed for the arrest where the officer observed the erratic driving, saw the driver had red, glassy eyes, smelled alcohol on the driver's breath and the driver admitted to having consumed alcohol. Id.