GA Supreme Court Rules On DUI Breathalyzer Test

Discussion in 'Georgia In the News' started by GeorgiaGlocker, Oct 16, 2017.

  1. Glockenator

    Glockenator Active Member

    847
    120
    43
    Interesting. I was under the impression, from what I was told here (if I recall correctly) that it wasn't already required in GA for a suspected DUI driver take a breathalizer or FST - that they could refuse either or both of those tests. My understanding is that Implied Consent only covers blood tests. Apparently, that was incorrect...until now.

    I have a much bigger problem with FST's. It seems that they are designed so that a large portion of people with fail them, either sober or impaired. If you are tired from a long day, or just an uncoordinated person, you will score poorly, even if you are stone-cold sober. If you are old, you are far more likely to score more poorly than a young person. And I would likely screw up the backwards alphabet, no matter what. If I were suspected of a DUI, I would respectfully refuse a FST, no matter what, for these reasons.
     

  2. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    The FST isn't actually a test. It's the police producing a video for use in your prosecution.

    As for the article, how is one convicted of DUI less safe and DUI BAC for the same act?
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2017
  3. NTA

    NTA Well-Known Member

    7,272
    130
    63
    I don't trust any cheap machinery that can be wrong or tampered with.

    What's worse, jury's love this scientific instrument evidence.
     
  4. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,641
    1,715
    113
    fify.
     
  5. NTA

    NTA Well-Known Member

    7,272
    130
    63
    Here in TX, during especially big drunk'ish weekends, the cops have a judge standing by on the phone to get an instant verbal warrant for blood draw.

    Not as good as the old days in Houston when the cops carried a pad of pre-signed warrants. That was determined to be pushing the Constitution a bit too hard.
     
  6. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    Implied consent for blood tests was overturned in BIRCHFIELD v. NORTH DAKOTA (2015)

     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  7. Glockenator

    Glockenator Active Member

    847
    120
    43
    Now I am really confused. Are you saying that Implied Consent no longer exists in Georgia? If that is the case, and an impaired driver refuses to take a FST, breathalizer and blood test, then how could he/she be convicted of a DUI?

    edited: Reading your quote again, it now appears that breathalizers are required, but blood tests aren't. Correct? In that case, just about anyone could get away with a DUI on weed. Or is the key word "warrantless"? A warrant issued by a judge would require either a breathalizer or blood test? I am easily confused.
    I am heading out for a mountain bike ride, so I won't have a chance to read or reply for a while.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  8. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    You can refuse the breathalizer. At that point the state performs a blatant end run of the 5th & 7th amendments by declaring that the penalties it hands down are not "criminal" but "civil".

    The state also keeps an ace up it's sleeve in OCGA § 40-6-391(b) which allows the state to convict you only on the officer's determination that you are "less safe... to drive". Conveniently, this has absolutely no objective standard.
     
    gunsmoker likes this.
  9. NTA

    NTA Well-Known Member

    7,272
    130
    63
    That 'civil' deal is a terrific end run.
    Speed cameras are illegal in TX.
    Some cities use them anyway and assess a civil penalty/fine.

    But, an unpaid fine of this type, prevents renewal of DL's and annual car registration tax. Sort of like an unpaid parking ticket in GA (info of which is shared with other states too).
     
  10. Glockenator

    Glockenator Active Member

    847
    120
    43
    So, is it true that based on that, you could get a "DUI"...I mean "Less safe to drive", if you were driving home from a long day, tired, but with no alcohol, illegal drugs, or even legal prescription drugs in your system, even as proven by a breathalizer and blood test (if you allowed either), being stone-cold sober, just because you were tired and didn't act the way the cop thought you should act?

    If so, we need to get some legislatures to fix this utter garbage. That is exactly what the Cobb PD and that slimeball cop Carroll (the "drug recognition expert" who is everything but that) have been doing. I was pleased to read in the local paper about a class action suit against them for that stuff.

    If would be everything I could possibly do, to not get arrested for something else, if a cop went to arrest me for that mess, when I was completely sober. I would most likely fail at restraining myself. Bad police departments and bad cops are one of the most disgusting things there are, in my mind.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Your understanding is correct, and this ruling does not change that.


    I am assuming by "breathalyzer" you mean the hand held one out on the road.



    No, your hypothetical is not true.
     
  12. Glockenator

    Glockenator Active Member

    847
    120
    43

    Yes - I meant a portable breathalyzer.

    My hypothetical was based on this:

    "The state also keeps an ace up it's sleeve in OCGA § 40-6-391(b) which allows the state to convict you only on the officer's determination that you are "less safe... to drive". Conveniently, this has absolutely no objective standard."

    What am I missing on that scenario? It isn't so much the arrest part that concerns me, as the conviction part.
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Google the code section, read subsection (b), then reconsider. Read it again and again until it comes to you.
     
  14. Glockenator

    Glockenator Active Member

    847
    120
    43
    I did, and found nothing under that code that mentioned anything about implied consent.

    I was simply asking for clarification on what seemed to me to be conflicting information posted in this thread.
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    I guess I am a little lost on what you are asking. No, you do not have to submit to field sobriety tests, including the handheld alco-sensor. No, you cannot be convicted of DUI less safe if tests show no drugs or alcohol in your system. If these do not answer your questions, then please ask in another way, and I will see if I can help.





    Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

    - Francisco D'Anconia​
     
  16. Glockenator

    Glockenator Active Member

    847
    120
    43
    That does answer the question I was asking. Thanks.
     
  17. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    3,028
    153
    63
    The DUI laws in this state bother me, especially the "less safe". Example from Duren v. State 252 Ga. App. 257:

    and
    Oye vey.
     
  18. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,832
    507
    113
    Think of the children! :groupprotest:
     
  19. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    I am stunned you quoted Frank...

    Back to the issue, can you be convicted of DUI less safe if there is no test taken at all?