Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
29 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 821 . 2018See McMullen , 316 Ga. App. at 693-694 (3) (a), n. 42, 730 S.E.2d 151 . 25 Although the Appellant's brief states that he received "a serious head injury and hip injury during the collision," the only evidence presented regarding his injuries was Trooper Hand's hearsay testimony that unidentified hospital personnel had told him that the Appellant had some type of "head injury" and another, unspecified injury. 26 See Williams , 296 Ga. at 819 , 771 S.E.2d 373 . 27 Steele v. State , 337 Ga. App. 562 , 564 (2), 788 S.E.2d 145 (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). | 2 | 5 |
Elliott v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See State v. Dias, 321 Ga. 261 , 263-264 ( 914 SE2d 291 ) (2025) (“We did not hold in Elliott [v. State, 305 Ga. 179 ( 824 SE2d 265 ) (2019], or in any other case, that evidence that a DUI suspect asserted her right under the Fourth Amendment to refuse to submit to a warrantless blood test is inadmissible at trial on the basis that . . . use of such evidence would infringe upon her right against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, her right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, and [Art. 2025See State v. Dias, 321 Ga. 261 , 263-264 ( 914 SE2d 291 ) (2025) (“We did not hold in Elliott [v. State, 305 Ga. 179 ( 824 SE2d 265 ) (2019], or in any other case, that evidence that a DUI suspect asserted her right under the Fourth Amendment to refuse to submit to a warrantless blood test is inadmissible at trial on the basis that . . . use of such evidence would infringe upon her right against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, her right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, and [Art. | 2 | 2 |
Nathans v. Diamondgreen2 sentences2025II (1) (This Court “shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction in . . . all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been drawn in question.”); Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804, 807-808 (2) ( 654 SE2d 121 ) (2007) (“It is well established that this Court does not ever pass upon the constitutionality of an Act of the General Assembly unless it clearly appears in the record that the point was directly and properly made in the court below and distinctly passed on by the trial judge.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 3 See OCGA §§ 40-5-55 (a 2025II (1) (This Court “shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction in . . . all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been drawn in question.”); Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804, 807-808 (2) ( 654 SE2d 121 ) (2007) (“It is well established that this Court does not ever pass upon the constitutionality of an Act of the General Assembly unless it clearly appears in the record that the point was directly and properly made in the court below and distinctly passed on by the trial judge.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 3 See OCGA §§ 40-5-55 (a | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cardergreen2 sentences2014Carder filed a motion to suppress certain evidence, and in State v. Carder, 301 Ga. App. 901 ( 689 SE2d 347 ) (2009), we affirmed the trial court’s ruling suppressing Carder’s statements to an arresting officer, affirmed the trial court’s ruling refusing to suppress statements Carder made to hospital personnel, and reversed the trial court’s suppression of evidence that Carder refused to take a State-administered blood test. 2014Carder filed a motion to suppress certain evidence, and in State v. Carder, 301 Ga. App. 901 ( 689 SE2d 347 ) (2009), we affirmed the trial court’s ruling suppressing Carder’s statements to an arresting officer, affirmed the trial court’s ruling refusing to suppress statements Carder made to hospital personnel, and reversed the trial court’s suppression of evidence that Carder refused to take a State-administered blood test. | 1 | 3 |
Kendrick v. the Stategreen2 sentences2017See Kendrick v. State, 335 Ga. App. 766, 769-71 ( 782 SE2d 842 ) (2016) (implied consent notice is not coercive in failing to inform suspect of right to refuse); State v. Oyeniyi, 335 Ga. App. 575, 578 ( 782 SE2d 476 ) (2016) (implied consent notice is not misleading or an overstatement of penalties authorized by law). 2016In its sole enumeration of error, the State contends that the trial court erred in determining that Williams did not actually consent to take the state-administered blood test under the totality of the circumstances. *796 Georgia courts generally have found that a consent to search is voluntary if the totality of the circumstances show no implicit or explicit use of “fear, intimidation, threat of physical punishment, or lengthy detention to obtain the consent.” Kendrick, 335 Ga. App. at 769 . | 1 | 2 |
Cooper v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Cooper v. State, 277 Ga. 282 ( 587 SE2d 605 ) (2003); Hough v. State, 279 Ga. 711 ( 620 SE2d 380 ) (2005). 2009See Cooper v. State, 277 Ga. 282 ( 587 SE2d 605 ) (2003); Hough v. State, 279 Ga. 711 ( 620 SE2d 380 ) (2005). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Diasgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Dias, 321 Ga. 261 , 263-264 ( 914 SE2d 291 ) (2025) (“We did not hold in Elliott [v. State, 305 Ga. 179 ( 824 SE2d 265 ) (2019], or in any other case, that evidence that a DUI suspect asserted her right under the Fourth Amendment to refuse to submit to a warrantless blood test is inadmissible at trial on the basis that . . . use of such evidence would infringe upon her right against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, her right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, and [Art. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2024That statute provides: “In any criminal trial, the 3 State v. Davis, 303 Ga. 684, 687 (1) ( 814 SE2d 701 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted). 4 Id. at 687-88 (1) (emphasis supplied); accord City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty., 284 Ga. 434, 436 (2) ( 668 SE2d 247 ) (2008). 5 Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804, 807-08 (2) ( 654 SE2d 121 ) (2007) (punctuation omitted). refusal of the defendant to permit a chemical analysis to be made of his blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance at the time of his arrest shall be admissible in evidence against him.” According to the trial court, there is no preceden | 1 | 1 |
City of Decatur v. DeKalb Countygreen2 sentences2024That statute provides: “In any criminal trial, the 3 State v. Davis, 303 Ga. 684, 687 (1) ( 814 SE2d 701 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted). 4 Id. at 687-88 (1) (emphasis supplied); accord City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty., 284 Ga. 434, 436 (2) ( 668 SE2d 247 ) (2008). 5 Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804, 807-08 (2) ( 654 SE2d 121 ) (2007) (punctuation omitted). refusal of the defendant to permit a chemical analysis to be made of his blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance at the time of his arrest shall be admissible in evidence against him.” According to the trial court, there is no preceden 2024That statute provides: “In any criminal trial, the 3 State v. Davis, 303 Ga. 684, 687 (1) ( 814 SE2d 701 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted). 4 Id. at 687-88 (1) (emphasis supplied); accord City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty., 284 Ga. 434, 436 (2) ( 668 SE2d 247 ) (2008). 5 Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804, 807-08 (2) ( 654 SE2d 121 ) (2007) (punctuation omitted). refusal of the defendant to permit a chemical analysis to be made of his blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance at the time of his arrest shall be admissible in evidence against him.” According to the trial court, there is no preceden | 1 | 1 |
Plemmons v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Given these circumstances, the evidence authorized 15 Plemmons, 326 Ga. App. at 768 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Canelas, 345 Ga. App. at 504 (3). 16 Plemmons, 326 Ga. App. at 768 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Canelas, 345 Ga. App. at 504 (3). 9 the trial court to find that, at the time the officer read the implied-consent notice to Quint, a reasonable person in her position would have believed she was under arrest.17 Consequently, the trial court did not err in admitting her refusal to submit to the State- administered blood test into evidence. 2023Given these circumstances, the evidence authorized 15 Plemmons, 326 Ga. App. at 768 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Canelas, 345 Ga. App. at 504 (3). 16 Plemmons, 326 Ga. App. at 768 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Canelas, 345 Ga. App. at 504 (3). 9 the trial court to find that, at the time the officer read the implied-consent notice to Quint, a reasonable person in her position would have believed she was under arrest.17 Consequently, the trial court did not err in admitting her refusal to submit to the State- administered blood test into evidence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Randallgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Randall, 315 Ga. 198, 200 (1) ( 880 SE2d 134 ) (2022) (vacating trial court’s ruling that to the extent that OCGA §§ 40-5-67.1 (b) and 40-6-392 (d) allow for the introduction of evidence against an accused in a DUI prosecution, they violate state and federal due process guarantees, but “express[ing] no opinion about the important and difficult constitutional questions that remain unresolved”). 2023See State v. Randall, 315 Ga. 198, 200 (1) ( 880 SE2d 134 ) (2022) (vacating trial court’s ruling that to the extent that OCGA §§ 40-5-67.1 (b) and 40-6-392 (d) allow for the introduction of evidence against an accused in a DUI prosecution, they violate state and federal due process guarantees, but “express[ing] no opinion about the important and difficult constitutional questions that remain unresolved”). | 1 | 1 |
McMullen v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See McMullen , 316 Ga. App. at 693-694 (3) (a), n. 42, 730 S.E.2d 151 . 25 Although the Appellant's brief states that he received "a serious head injury and hip injury during the collision," the only evidence presented regarding his injuries was Trooper Hand's hearsay testimony that unidentified hospital personnel had told him that the Appellant had some type of "head injury" and another, unspecified injury. 26 See Williams , 296 Ga. at 819 , 771 S.E.2d 373 . 27 Steele v. State , 337 Ga. App. 562 , 564 (2), 788 S.E.2d 145 (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). 2018See McMullen , 316 Ga. App. at 693-694 (3) (a), n. 42, 730 S.E.2d 151 . 25 Although the Appellant's brief states that he received "a serious head injury and hip injury during the collision," the only evidence presented regarding his injuries was Trooper Hand's hearsay testimony that unidentified hospital personnel had told him that the Appellant had some type of "head injury" and another, unspecified injury. 26 See Williams , 296 Ga. at 819 , 771 S.E.2d 373 . 27 Steele v. State , 337 Ga. App. 562 , 564 (2), 788 S.E.2d 145 (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Steele v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See McMullen , 316 Ga. App. at 693-694 (3) (a), n. 42, 730 S.E.2d 151 . 25 Although the Appellant's brief states that he received "a serious head injury and hip injury during the collision," the only evidence presented regarding his injuries was Trooper Hand's hearsay testimony that unidentified hospital personnel had told him that the Appellant had some type of "head injury" and another, unspecified injury. 26 See Williams , 296 Ga. at 819 , 771 S.E.2d 373 . 27 Steele v. State , 337 Ga. App. 562 , 564 (2), 788 S.E.2d 145 (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). 2018See McMullen , 316 Ga. App. at 693-694 (3) (a), n. 42, 730 S.E.2d 151 . 25 Although the Appellant's brief states that he received "a serious head injury and hip injury during the collision," the only evidence presented regarding his injuries was Trooper Hand's hearsay testimony that unidentified hospital personnel had told him that the Appellant had some type of "head injury" and another, unspecified injury. 26 See Williams , 296 Ga. at 819 , 771 S.E.2d 373 . 27 Steele v. State , 337 Ga. App. 562 , 564 (2), 788 S.E.2d 145 (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
The State v. Oyeniyigreen2 sentences2017See Kendrick v. State, 335 Ga. App. 766, 769-71 ( 782 SE2d 842 ) (2016) (implied consent notice is not coercive in failing to inform suspect of right to refuse); State v. Oyeniyi, 335 Ga. App. 575, 578 ( 782 SE2d 476 ) (2016) (implied consent notice is not misleading or an overstatement of penalties authorized by law). 2017See Kendrick v. State, 335 Ga. App. 766, 769-71 ( 782 SE2d 842 ) (2016) (implied consent notice is not coercive in failing to inform suspect of right to refuse); State v. Oyeniyi, 335 Ga. App. 575, 578 ( 782 SE2d 476 ) (2016) (implied consent notice is not misleading or an overstatement of penalties authorized by law). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Frostgreen2 sentences2017(Emphasis supplied.) As the Supreme Court of Georgia has held, evidence that a DUI defendant previously refused a state-administered blood test “ ‘shall be admissible’ ” to permit the trier of fact to infer that “a prohibited intoxicant was present to some degree” and that the defendant “knew that the test results likely would tend to show that he was, in fact, under the influence of a prohibited substance.” State v. Frost, 297 Ga. 296, 297, 305 ( 773 SE2d 700 ) (2015), quoting OCGA § 24-4-417 (a) (1) (emphasis supplied). 2017(Emphasis supplied.) As the Supreme Court of Georgia has held, evidence that a DUI defendant previously refused a state-administered blood test “ ‘shall be admissible’ ” to permit the trier of fact to infer that “a prohibited intoxicant was present to some degree” and that the defendant “knew that the test results likely would tend to show that he was, in fact, under the influence of a prohibited substance.” State v. Frost, 297 Ga. 296, 297, 305 ( 773 SE2d 700 ) (2015), quoting OCGA § 24-4-417 (a) (1) (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 1 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen2 sentences2016See also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 228 (II) (B) ( 93 SCt 2041 , 36 LE2d 854) (1973); Cuaresma v. State, 292 Ga. App. 43, 47 (2) ( 663 SE2d 396 ) (2008). 2016See also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 228 (II) (B) ( 93 SCt 2041 , 36 LE2d 854) (1973); Cuaresma v. State, 292 Ga. App. 43, 47 (2) ( 663 SE2d 396 ) (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Cuaresma v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 228 (II) (B) ( 93 SCt 2041 , 36 LE2d 854) (1973); Cuaresma v. State, 292 Ga. App. 43, 47 (2) ( 663 SE2d 396 ) (2008). 2016See also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 228 (II) (B) ( 93 SCt 2041 , 36 LE2d 854) (1973); Cuaresma v. State, 292 Ga. App. 43, 47 (2) ( 663 SE2d 396 ) (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Catogreen2 sentences2009See State v. Cato, 289 Ga. App. 702 ( 658 SE2d 124 ) (2008). 1 But pretermitting whether the State had sufficient proof that Milburn read the implied consent notice to Daniel, any possible error was harmless. 2009See State v. Cato, 289 Ga. App. 702 ( 658 SE2d 124 ) (2008). 1 But pretermitting whether the State had sufficient proof that Milburn read the implied consent notice to Daniel, any possible error was harmless. | 1 | 1 |
Peek v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Peek v. State, 272 Ga. 169 ( 527 SE2d 552 ) (2000). 2000See Peek v. State, 272 Ga. 169 ( 527 SE2d 552 ) (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Albert v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560); see Albert v. State, 236 Ga. App. 146, 150 (3) ( 511 SE2d 244 ). 1999Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560); see Albert v. State, 236 Ga. App. 146, 150 (3) ( 511 SE2d 244 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Keenan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. O'DONNELLgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fantasia v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Perano v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences2015The United States Supreme Court in Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 ( 86 SCt 1826 , 16 LE2d 908) (1966), addressed the Fourth Amendment implications of a warrantless blood draw in a DUI case. 2015The United States Supreme Court in Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 ( 86 SCt 1826 , 16 LE2d 908) (1966), addressed the Fourth Amendment implications of a warrantless blood draw in a DUI case. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Anthony v. State
green
2 sentences2014For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. 1 “Following a criminal conviction, the defendant is no longer presumed innocent, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustain the verdict.” Anthony v. State, 317 Ga. App. 807 ( 732 SE2d 845 ) (2012). 2014For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. 1 “Following a criminal conviction, the defendant is no longer presumed innocent, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustain the verdict.” Anthony v. State, 317 Ga. App. 807 ( 732 SE2d 845 ) (2012). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2024That statute provides: “In any criminal trial, the 3 State v. Davis, 303 Ga. 684, 687 (1) ( 814 SE2d 701 ) (2018) (punctuation omitted). 4 Id. at 687-88 (1) (emphasis supplied); accord City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty., 284 Ga. 434, 436 (2) ( 668 SE2d 247 ) (2008). 5 Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804, 807-08 (2) ( 654 SE2d 121 ) (2007) (punctuation omitted). refusal of the defendant to permit a chemical analysis to be made of his blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substance at the time of his arrest shall be admissible in evidence against him.” According to the trial court, there is no preceden | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Olevik v. State
green
2 sentences2020In Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the protection against compelled self-incrimination provided by Article I, Section I, Paragraph XVI of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 affords a DUI suspect the right to refuse a State-administered breath test. 2020In Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the protection against compelled self-incrimination provided by Article I, Section I, Paragraph XVI of the Georgia Constitution of 1983 affords a DUI suspect the right to refuse a State-administered breath test. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2018We note that the Appellant errs in relying on State v. Morgan , 289 Ga. App. 706 , 707, 658 S.E.2d 237 (2008), for his argument that "an officer must read a suspect his implied consent rights before the suspect may be subjected to a state-administered blood test, 'even though a suspect may otherwise consent to testing.' " (Emphasis in original.) This Court has specifically noted that Morgan was decided under the prior version of OCGA § 40-5-67.1 that did not include subsection (d.1), and it has implicitly ruled that Morgan no longer constitutes precedent on this issue. 2018We note that the Appellant errs in relying on State v. Morgan , 289 Ga. App. 706 , 707, 658 S.E.2d 237 (2008), for his argument that "an officer must read a suspect his implied consent rights before the suspect may be subjected to a state-administered blood test, 'even though a suspect may otherwise consent to testing.' " (Emphasis in original.) This Court has specifically noted that Morgan was decided under the prior version of OCGA § 40-5-67.1 that did not include subsection (d.1), and it has implicitly ruled that Morgan no longer constitutes precedent on this issue. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
1 sentence2016In her motion for reconsideration, Domenge-Delhoyo points this court to the United States Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Birchfield v. North Dakota, _ U. S. _ ( 136 SCt 2160 , 195 LE2d 560) (2016), notes that this court did not mention it, and asserts that it “may have a significant impact on the analysis of the voluntariness of the Appellee’s consent to the state-administered blood test.” We disagree. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Davis v. the State
green
2 sentences2016Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 (2015); Davis v. State, 332 Ga. App. 488 [( 773 SE2d 442 )] (2015). 2016Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 (2015); Davis v. State, 332 Ga. App. 488 [( 773 SE2d 442 )] (2015). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2013Corporal Greene then read the implied consent warning to Hughes, and Hughes submitted to a State-administered blood test. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 ( 86 SCt 1602 , 16 LE2d 694) (1966). 3 Hughes did not challenge the authority of the search incident to arrest. 4 Hughes filed a motion to suppress the results of the blood test, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause to believe that he was driving under the influence of drugs. 2013Corporal Greene then read the implied consent warning to Hughes, and Hughes submitted to a State-administered blood test. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 ( 86 SCt 1602 , 16 LE2d 694) (1966). 3 Hughes did not challenge the authority of the search incident to arrest. 4 Hughes filed a motion to suppress the results of the blood test, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause to believe that he was driving under the influence of drugs. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hough v. State
green
2 sentences2009See Cooper v. State, 277 Ga. 282 ( 587 SE2d 605 ) (2003); Hough v. State, 279 Ga. 711 ( 620 SE2d 380 ) (2005). 2009See Cooper v. State, 277 Ga. 282 ( 587 SE2d 605 ) (2003); Hough v. State, 279 Ga. 711 ( 620 SE2d 380 ) (2005). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
1 sentence1999Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560); see Albert v. State, 236 Ga. App. 146, 150 (3) ( 511 SE2d 244 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Brinson v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Steed v. City of Atlanta green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.