Padidham v. State

The state's failure to immediately inform a DUI defendant of the results of the state-administered breath test does not create a situation where the defendant is left with no, or so little, information that he is denied any meaningful choice as to whether to request an independent test in violation of due process.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in State v. Padidham , 310 Ga. App. 839 714 SE2d 657 2011, to determine when the results of a State-administered Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test must be given to a defendant accused of driving under the influence DUI in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391.1 Because we hold that the procedures followed by the State comport with the fundamental fairness required by due process, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Appellant Jyothiswar Padidham was arrested and charged with driving under the influence after being stopped for a traffic violation by a City of Duluth police officer.2 At the time of his arrest, appellant was informed of his rights under Georgia’s Implied Consent Statutes, OCGA § § 40-5-55 and 40-5-67.1 b, and was asked whether he would consent to submit to a State-administered breath test. He was further informed, consistent with the mandate of OCGA § 40-5-67.1 b 2, that should he submit to the State’s test, he had the right to request an independent test by a qualified person of his choosing.3 Appellant consented to testing by the State but he at no time requested that an independent test be administered. Nor did he ask to be informed of the results of the State’s test, which indicated blood alcohol levels of .129 and .126. Appellant first learned of the results of the State’s test the next morning when he was provided a copy of the test results in his property bag.

Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress evidence of the State’s breath test results, arguing they were inadmissible because the State had a statutory and constitutional duty to immediately inform him of the results. The trial court agreed appellant should have been given “prompt delivery of the breath test result” and granted the motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals reversed but did not address in its opinion appellant’s constitutional arguments. Padidham , supra.

Padidham v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report