12 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Olevik v. Stategreen2 sentences2024But that holding was based on the conclusion in Elliott’s precursor, Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228 (806 SE2d 505) (2017), that submission to such a chemical breath test was an affirmative act to which Paragraph XVI applied given the deep lung breath and sustained strong blowing necessary for such a breath test, which requires a certain level of cooperation. 2024But that holding was based on the conclusion in Elliott’s precursor, Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228 (806 SE2d 505) (2017), that submission to such a chemical breath test was an affirmative act to which Paragraph XVI applied given the deep lung breath and sustained strong blowing necessary for such a breath test, which requires a certain level of cooperation. | 4 | 7 |
Elliott v. Stategreen2 sentences2024In support of his argument that such evidence was inadmissible, Williams points to our decision in Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 (824 SE2d 265) (2019), wherein we held that Paragraph XVI barred the State from using a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical breath test against the defendant in her criminal trial. 2024In support of his argument that such evidence was inadmissible, Williams points to our decision in Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 (824 SE2d 265) (2019), wherein we held that Paragraph XVI barred the State from using a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical breath test against the defendant in her criminal trial. | 3 | 5 |
Gunn v. the Stategreen2 sentences2022Thus, we consider this argument abandoned.6 Porter also asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his 2015 arrest for DUI because Porter refused to submit to a chemical breath test in 2015 and evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test is excluded under the Georgia Supreme Court’s rulings in Olevik v. State7 and Elliott v. State.8 Although we 6 See Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) (“Any enumeration of error that is not supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument may be deemed abandoned.”); De Castro v. Durrell, 295 Ga. App. 194, 204 (3) ( 671 2022Thus, we consider this argument abandoned.6 Porter also asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his 2015 arrest for DUI because Porter refused to submit to a chemical breath test in 2015 and evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test is excluded under the Georgia Supreme Court’s rulings in Olevik v. State7 and Elliott v. State.8 Although we 6 See Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) (“Any enumeration of error that is not supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument may be deemed abandoned.”); De Castro v. Durrell, 295 Ga. App. 194, 204 (3) ( 671 | 1 | 1 |
De Castro v. Durrellgreen2 sentences2022Thus, we consider this argument abandoned.6 Porter also asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his 2015 arrest for DUI because Porter refused to submit to a chemical breath test in 2015 and evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test is excluded under the Georgia Supreme Court’s rulings in Olevik v. State7 and Elliott v. State.8 Although we 6 See Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) (“Any enumeration of error that is not supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument may be deemed abandoned.”); De Castro v. Durrell, 295 Ga. App. 194, 204 (3) ( 671 2022Thus, we consider this argument abandoned.6 Porter also asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his 2015 arrest for DUI because Porter refused to submit to a chemical breath test in 2015 and evidence of a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test is excluded under the Georgia Supreme Court’s rulings in Olevik v. State7 and Elliott v. State.8 Although we 6 See Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) (“Any enumeration of error that is not supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument may be deemed abandoned.”); De Castro v. Durrell, 295 Ga. App. 194, 204 (3) ( 671 | 1 | 1 |
Awad v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Awad v. State, 313 Ga. 99, 103 (3) (868 SE2d 219) (2022) (“Under Olevik and Elliott, the right against compelled self-incrimination 4We went on to note in Olevik that although Paragraph XVI refers only to testimony, its protection against compelled self-incrimination was long ago construed to also cover incriminating acts and, thus, is more extensive than the Supreme Court of the United States’s interpretation of the right against compelled self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. 302 Ga. at 240 (2) (b) (ii). 9 protected by Paragraph XVI prohibits the State from admitting into 2022See Awad v. State, 313 Ga. 99, 103 (3) (868 SE2d 219) (2022) (“Under Olevik and Elliott, the right against compelled self-incrimination 4We went on to note in Olevik that although Paragraph XVI refers only to testimony, its protection against compelled self-incrimination was long ago construed to also cover incriminating acts and, thus, is more extensive than the Supreme Court of the United States’s interpretation of the right against compelled self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. 302 Ga. at 240 (2) (b) (ii). 9 protected by Paragraph XVI prohibits the State from admitting into | 1 | 1 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernardgreen1 sentence2019See Olevik, 302 Ga. at 243 (citing Birchfield v. North Dakota, __ U. S. __, __ ( 136 SCt 2160 , 195 LE2d 560) (2016)). advisement misled him by stating that if he refused the test, that refusal could be used against him at trial and could affect his driving privileges. | 1 | 1 |
Scanlon v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See also Scanlon v. State, 237 Ga. App. 362, 364 (2) ( 514 SE2d 876 ) (1999) (results obtained from a chemical breath test, like the results obtained from a sobriety test or a blood test, are not evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature). 2014See also Scanlon v. State, 237 Ga. App. 362, 364 (2) ( 514 SE2d 876 ) (1999) (results obtained from a chemical breath test, like the results obtained from a sobriety test or a blood test, are not evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature). | 1 | 1 |
Viau v. Stategreen2 sentences2007In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we “construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court, and that court’s findings as to disputed facts and credibility must be adopted unless clearly erroneous.” Viau v. State, 260 Ga. App. 96, 100 (3) ( 579 SE2d 52 ) (2003). (a) According to Jones, the State failed to prove that Officer Johnson fully advised him of his implied consent rights, mandating suppression of the chemical breath test results. 2007In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we “construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court, and that court’s findings as to disputed facts and credibility must be adopted unless clearly erroneous.” Viau v. State, 260 Ga. App. 96, 100 (3) ( 579 SE2d 52 ) (2003). (a) According to Jones, the State failed to prove that Officer Johnson fully advised him of his implied consent rights, mandating suppression of the chemical breath test results. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen1 sentence1999See id. at 593-597 . | 1 | 1 |
Montgomery v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Montgomery v. State, 174 Ga. App. 95, 96 (1) ( 329 SE2d 166 ) (1985); see also Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569, 572 (2) ( 436 SE2d 475 ) (1993). 4. 1999See Montgomery v. State, 174 Ga. App. 95, 96 (1) ( 329 SE2d 166 ) (1985); see also Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569, 572 (2) ( 436 SE2d 475 ) (1993). 4. | 1 | 1 |
Keenan v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Montgomery v. State, 174 Ga. App. 95, 96 (1) ( 329 SE2d 166 ) (1985); see also Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569, 572 (2) ( 436 SE2d 475 ) (1993). 4. 1999See Montgomery v. State, 174 Ga. App. 95, 96 (1) ( 329 SE2d 166 ) (1985); see also Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569, 572 (2) ( 436 SE2d 475 ) (1993). 4. | 1 | 1 |
Schmerber v. Californiagreen1 sentence1999See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 765 (86 SC 1826, 16 LE2d 908) (1966); see also United States v. Wade, supra at 221-223; Green v. State, 194 Ga. App. 343, 344 (3) ( 390 SE2d 285 ) (1990). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wadegreen1 sentence1999See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 765 (86 SC 1826, 16 LE2d 908) (1966); see also United States v. Wade, supra at 221-223; Green v. State, 194 Ga. App. 343, 344 (3) ( 390 SE2d 285 ) (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 765 (86 SC 1826, 16 LE2d 908) (1966); see also United States v. Wade, supra at 221-223; Green v. State, 194 Ga. App. 343, 344 (3) ( 390 SE2d 285 ) (1990). 1999See Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 765 (86 SC 1826, 16 LE2d 908) (1966); see also United States v. Wade, supra at 221-223; Green v. State, 194 Ga. App. 343, 344 (3) ( 390 SE2d 285 ) (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Price v. State
green
1 sentence1999In view of the statutory protections provided by our implied consent statutes, we decline to extend the holding in Price, supra, and the similar cases of this Court, so as to require that a Miranda warning precede a request to submit to a chemical breath test when a suspect is in police custody. 5. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Richards v. State
green
2 sentences1998Further, in Richards v. State, 225 Ga. App. 777 ( 484 SE2d 683 ) (1997), relied on by the trial court, we held that the results of a chemical breath test should have been suppressed because “[t]he implied consent warning read by [the officer] did not match exactly the words of OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b). . . .” Id. at 779 (2). 1998Further, in Richards v. State, 225 Ga. App. 777 ( 484 SE2d 683 ) (1997), relied on by the trial court, we held that the results of a chemical breath test should have been suppressed because “[t]he implied consent warning read by [the officer] did not match exactly the words of OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b). . . .” Id. at 779 (2). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.