State v. Coe

Police officer did not have to give a Miranda warning to DUI arrestee before asking him to submit to a state-administered urine test after he had taken a blood test. The contrary holding in State v. Warmack, 230 Ga. App. 157 1998, is overruled, since the Georgia Supreme Court's rulings have held that chemical testing of bodily substances does not implicate Georgia protections against self-incrimination.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this prosecution for multiple alternative counts of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, plus possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, the State Court of DeKalb County granted John H. Coe’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical test of Coe’s urine. Pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 a 4, the State brings this direct appeal. Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s determination, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing authorized the following facts:

On February 10, 1998, police were conducting a driver’s-license-and-insurance roadblock and Coe was stopped at approximately 2:00 a.m. While Coe was searching for his documents, the officer “was able to detect a slight odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from Mr. Coe’s person.” Coe, whose eyes were bloodshot and watery, stated he had consumed two beers. After the officer administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk and turn, and the one-leg stand field sobriety tests, he felt Coe was impaired and formally placed him under arrest for driving under the influence. Once Coe was placed in the rear of the patrol car, he was read the Implied Consent Notice for suspects age 21 and over and was requested to submit to a chemical test of only his breath. A subsequent search of Coe’s vehicle incident to that arrest revealed suspected marijuana in clear plastic bags plus some suspected marijuana cigarettes. The results of a breath test administered at the jail registered a blood alcohol concentration of .045 grams percent. At that point, the arresting officer read Coe his Implied Consent again, and asked him to submit to a urine test. Coe agreed and submitted to the urine test.

State v. Coe

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report