 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hough v. State9/3/2004
he officer testified as to his belief that Hough was DUI and the reasonable grounds for that belief. Further, in Buchanan, the defendant consented to having his blood tested after being told that "the officer 'had to take it anyway' given the seriousness of the accident. [Thus,] Buchanan did not believe he had a choice." [FN13] Here, Hough was not told his blood was going to be tested due to serious injury, with or without his consent; he was given a choice; he was asked to consent to a blood test because of suspected DUI pursuant to the Implied Consent notice for drivers over twenty-one, OCGA § 40-5-67.1(b)(2); and he agreed to the test. Hough did not testify at the motion hearing, and there is no evidence that his consent was involuntary.
Under OCGA § 40-5-67.1, a state-administered chemical test may be obtained by a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe that a person is DUI and,
the officer has arrested such person for [DUI] ... or the person has been involved in a traffic accident resulting in serious injuries or fatalities. [FN14]
An arrest or serious injury are alternative conditions precedent to seeking a chemical test pursuant to Implied Consent laws where reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(DUI) are also present. [FN15] Here, as determined in Division 2(a) supra, the officer had reasonable grounds to believe Hough was DUI in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1) and Hough was involved in a traffic accident resulting in serious injury. Under these circumstances, an arrest is not also required by OCGA § 40-5-67.1 for the administration of chemical testing per Implied Consent law.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|