 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Adams12/13/2004
Ronald Jason Adams was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Adams moved to suppress the results of the State-administered breath test. He also sought to suppress statements that he made to the arresting officer. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Adams' motion with respect to the breath test, but denied the motion to suppress his statements. In Case Number A04A2101, the State appeals, and in Case Number A04A2102, Adams appeals. As both cases involve the same operative facts, we have consolidated them on appeal. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we construe the facts in a light most favorable to the trial court's findings and judgment. Viewed in this manner, the record shows that while working the night shift on December 14, 2003, Hall County Sheriff's Deputy Dave Miller saw Adams driving a truck without functioning tail lights. Miller pulled the truck over, and Adams exited. Miller immediately noticed a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the truck, and he asked Adams to perform field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.
After the tests indicated that Adams was impaired, Miller placed Adams under arrest, read him the implied consent warning, and asked him, " ill you submit to the state-administered chemical test of your . . . breath under the implied consent law?" According to Miller, Adams "wasn't sure how to answer the question." Miller testified:
I told him it was simply a yes or no question. There again, he bounced back. He didn't know what to say, and I said . . . it's either you take the test or you don't. It's up to you. I can't influence it one way or another. I said I can't explain implied consent. If you don't under[stand,] I will read it again for you. He declined the second reading, still didn't give me an answer. We're in a rain that's bordering sleet. So I just simply escorted him to my patrol car and said let me get your truck taken care of . . . and then I'll give you time to think over what's going on, and then I'll ask you again.
Miller took Adams to the Hall County Detention Center where Adams submitted to the test. Miller did not read Adams his implied consent rights a second time, nor did he explicitly ask for Adams' consent. Rather, Miller simply offered Adams a chance to take the test, and Adams complied. According to Adams, Miller took him from a holding cell, put him in front of the machine, and told him to blow into it. Adams testified that he blew into the machine " ecause I thought I had to."
Adams moved to suppress evidence of the breath test, arguing that his failure to respond to Miller's request for a breath sample was tantamount to a refusal. The trial court agreed and, based upon the recent case of Howell v. State, suppressed the evidence. The trial court went on to hold that "the State would be given the opportunity to have appropriate jury charges given as to the ramifications of [Adams'] refusal [to submit to testing]."
Case Number A04A2101
1. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court's reliance upon Howell is misplaced. We disagree.
In that case, the arresting officer read Howell his implied consent rights and asked him to submit to a breath test. Although Howell refused, the officer took Howell to the police station, placed him in front of the Intoxilyzer machine, and told him to blow into the machine. Howell complied. On appeal, this Court held that such procedure was unfair and that the arresting officer's conduct was not reasonable. We reach the same result here.
The only difference between this case and Howell is that Adams
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|