 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sheehan v. State4/21/2004
ility to obtain an additional test shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test or tests taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer." In deciding whether the failure to obtain the additional test is justified, a "trial court must decide if, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer made a reasonable effort to accommodate the accused who seeks an independent test." Cadden, supra at 292, 444 S.E.2d 383. See also Hulsinger v. State, 221 Ga.App. 274, 275, 470 S.E.2d 809 (1996).
When Sheehan told Milstein that he wanted an independent test, Milstein readily took him to a local hospital. And upon learning that the hospital receptionist would not accept a check for the test, when Sheehan told Milstein he had cash at his business, Milstein again acted quickly on Sheehan's behalf and began making preparations to carry Sheehan to the business to obtain the cash. Only when Sheehan informed Milstein in the hospital parking lot that he had only a checkbook at his business and that he had no other means of obtaining cash did Milstein cease his efforts to assist Sheehan in obtaining an independent test. Milstein testified that he knew of no place that would cash a check at 2:00 a.m., and nothing in the record indicates that this belief was unreasonable.
Short of Milstein paying for the test himself, which of course is not required of a police officer, we agree with the trial court that Milstein could have done little else to accommodate Sheehan's request to obtain an additional test. "In reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, our responsibility is to ensure that there was a substantial basis for the decision." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hulsinger, supra at 275, 470 S.E.2d 809. So reviewing the evidence, we conclude that ample basis existed from which the trial court could conclude that Milstein made a reasonable effort to assist Sheehan in obtaining the test. The trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress.
**875 Cole v. State, 263 Ga.App. 222, 587 S.E.2d 314 (2003), on which Sheehan primarily relies to argue that his motion should have been granted, is not controlling here. In Cole, the arresting officer transported the defendant to a hospital, where blood was drawn but not tested, because the incident occurred on a holiday. The officer was aware of two other medical facilities but did not contact them to determine whether they were open. Id. at 223, 587 S.E.2d 314. Here, the issue was whether Sheehan could pay for the test in the first instance, and Milstein was unaware of any place that would cash a check at 2:00 *155 a.m. Milstein made himself readily available to assist Sheehan in obtaining the test, and reversal is not warranted.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|