9 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
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. | 1 | 2 |
Missouri v. McNeelygreen2 sentences2015However, prior to the bench trial and the denial of the motion to suppress in Williams’s case, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. __ ( 133 SCt 1552 , 185 LE2d 696) (2013), in which it rejected a per se rule that the natural metabolization of alcohol in a person’s bloodstream constitutes an exigency justifying an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all DUI cases. 569 U. S. _ ( 133 SCt at 1556 ). 2015However, prior to the bench trial and the denial of the motion to suppress in Williams’s case, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. __ ( 133 SCt 1552 , 185 LE2d 696) (2013), in which it rejected a per se rule that the natural metabolization of alcohol in a person’s bloodstream constitutes an exigency justifying an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all DUI cases. 569 U. S. _ ( 133 SCt at 1556 ). | 1 | 2 |
Olevik v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Olevik, 302 Ga. at 244 (2) (c) (iii) (“Compelling a defendant to perform an act that is incriminating in nature is precisely what Paragraph XVI 5 prohibits.”).5 We did not hold in Elliott, 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, as Dias claims, 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 Paragraph XVI. 6 The 2025See Olevik, 302 Ga. at 244 (2) (c) (iii) (“Compelling a defendant to perform an act that is incriminating in nature is precisely what Paragraph XVI prohibits.”).5 We did not hold in Elliott, or in any 5 See also Awad v. State, 313 Ga. 99, 102 (2), 103 (3) ( 868 SE2d 219 ) (2022) (“Under Elliott, whether Paragraph XVI requires a court to grant a 5 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, as Dias claims, use of such evidence would infringe upon her right a | 1 | 1 |
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 |
La Anyane v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Paragraph XVI affords a [DUI] defendant a right to refuse to submit [to a state-administered urine test] and a right to suppress evidence of the defendant’s refusal” under our holdings in Olevik and Elliott.). 6 See La Anyane v. State, 321 Ga. 312, 318 (2) (a) (ii) ( 913 SE2d 635 ) (2025) (“It is true that we held in Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 ( 824 SE2d 265 ) (2019), that OCGA § 40-6-392 (d) is unconstitutional as applied to breath tests, because under the Georgia Constitution, providing deep lung air for a breath test is a self-incriminatory act, and a person’s exercise of her right not t | 1 | 1 |
Awad v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Olevik, 302 Ga. at 244 (2) (c) (iii) (“Compelling a defendant to perform an act that is incriminating in nature is precisely what Paragraph XVI prohibits.”).5 We did not hold in Elliott, or in any 5 See also Awad v. State, 313 Ga. 99, 102 (2), 103 (3) ( 868 SE2d 219 ) (2022) (“Under Elliott, whether Paragraph XVI requires a court to grant a 5 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, as Dias claims, use of such evidence would infringe upon her right a 2025See Olevik, 302 Ga. at 244 (2) (c) (iii) (“Compelling a defendant to perform an act that is incriminating in nature is precisely what Paragraph XVI prohibits.”).5 We did not hold in Elliott, or in any 5 See also Awad v. State, 313 Ga. 99, 102 (2), 103 (3) ( 868 SE2d 219 ) (2022) (“Under Elliott, whether Paragraph XVI requires a court to grant a 5 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, as Dias claims, use of such evidence would infringe upon her right a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
2 sentences2020Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U. S. ___ (V) (C) (3) ( 136 SCt 2160, 2165 , 195 LE2d 560) (2016) (“Because breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and in most cases amply serve law enforcement interests . . . a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving . . . [A] warrant is not needed in this situation.”). 2016Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. _ , _(V) (C) (3) ( 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2184 , 195 LE2d 560) (2016). | 3 | 2016–2020 |
Williams v. State
green
2 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 . 2017Kevin Mooney, for appellee. 1 The encounter was recorded by the trooper’s patrol car camera, and a digital copy of the audio and video recording was admitted into evidence without objection at the motion to suppress hearing. 2 The results of the blood test indicated Nicholson had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.136. 3 See OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1) and (5) and OCGA § 40-6-315. 4 In Williams , the Supreme Court clarified that, “[wjhether 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 pu | 2 | 2017–2025 |
McKIBBEN v. THE STATE
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.