Davis v. State

The Court vacated the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress and his convictions for DUI less safe, DUI per se and reckless driving, and remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether the totality of the circumstances showed that the defendant's consent to the blood alcohol test was given freely and voluntarily.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a bench trial in Clarke County State Court, Cameron Davis was convicted of DUI less safe, DUI per se, and reckless driving. Davis now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his state-administered blood alcohol test. Specifically, Davis contends that because his alleged consent to that test resulted solely from Georgia’s implied consent notice, it was not freely and voluntarily given and the test therefore violated the Fourth Amendment and the related provision of the Georgia Constitution.1 For reasons explained below, we vacate both the trial court’s order denying Davis’s motion to suppress and the judgment of conviction and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the Georgia Supreme Court’s opinion in Williams v. State, ___ Ga. ___ Case No. S14A1625, decided March 27, 2015.

The record shows that at the bench trial, the parties stipulated to the relevant facts. The stipulated facts show that at approximately 12:30 p.m. on October 7, 2012, an Athens police officer conducted a legal traffic stop of a car driven by Davis.2 The officer initiating the stop noticed that Davis had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech and smelled strongly of alcohol. The officer asked Davis to take an alcohol breath test but Davis refused, saying that he would prefer a blood alcohol test. The officer then explained that Davis was not under arrest, asked Davis to participate in field sobriety tests, and explained to Davis what those tests would entail. Davis responded that he would “rather not” undergo the field sobriety tests. The officer then arrested Davis and read him the implied consent notice3 and again asked him to submit to a breath test. Davis reiterated that he would prefer a blood test. The officer read the implied consent notice to Davis a second time and asked Davis to undergo a blood test; Davis then agreed to the request.

Davis v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report