 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Simmons10/19/2004
esired, or, (2) refuse State testing, suffering the attendant evidentiary consequences. Id. at 733 n. 7, 566 S.E.2d 320. While in proper circumstances one may rescind a refusal to submit to State testing, McCafferty v. State, supra; Dep't of Public Safety v. Seay, supra, this is wholly consistent with our implied consent law in that it amounts to no more than submission to State testing as required thereunder. OCGA §§ 40-5-55(a); 40-5-67.1; see Furcal-Peguero v. State, supra (rescinding refusal to submit to State testing impliedly consents thereto). However, no fair analogy may be drawn between rescinding refusal of State testing and withdrawing consent to State testing once consent has been given, the latter as contrary to public safety policy mandating that drivers arrested for DUI submit to State-administered chemical testing, subject to the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-392, to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs in their persons. OCGA §§ 40- 5-55(a); 40-5-67.1; OCGA § 40-6-391; compare Garcia v. State, 207 Ga.App. 653, 656(1)(d), 428 S.E.2d 666 (1993) (in the general criminal law voluntary consent legally obtained continues until revoked or withdrawn absent probable cause to arrest). That the state court granted Simmons's motion to suppress upon finding him entitled to withdraw his duly given consent to State-administered testing on the theory that chemical analysis of his blood sample had not yet begun, is thus contrary to our implied consent law and reversible error.
*2 Judgment reversed.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|