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.
7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen2 sentences2015Cooper v. State, supra at 291 (VI), citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 219 ( 93 SCt 2041 , 36 LE2d 854) (1973). 2015Cooper v. State, supra at 291 (VI), citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 219 ( 93 SCt 2041 , 36 LE2d 854) (1973). | 2 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2024And the analysis in that case “focus[ed] on the voluntary consent exception to the warrant requirement because it is well settled in the context of a DUI blood draw that a valid consent to a search eliminates the need for either probable cause or a search warrant.” Id. at 821 (emphasis supplied). 2016Stoica filed a motion for new trial after his conviction, arguing that under Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 ( 771 SE2d 373 ) (2015), which adopted the voluntary consent analysis in McNeely, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the blood test. | 1 | 5 |
Zepp v. Brannengreen2 sentences2024Thus, Williams did not address whether a refusal to submit to a blood test is admissible evidence. 8 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017). 9 Id. at 231 (2) (a). a constitutional right to refuse to consent to warrantless blood tests, absent some other exception to the warrant requirement.”10 But significantly, the defendant in Olevik only refused to submit to the breath test, arguing that the results of the test, not the refusal, were inadmissible.11 So, arguably, any discussion of blood testing in Olevik could be considered non-binding dicta.12 Finally, in Randall v. State,13 although the Supre 2024Thus, Williams did not address whether a refusal to submit to a blood test is admissible evidence. 8 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017). 9 Id. at 231 (2) (a). a constitutional right to refuse to consent to warrantless blood tests, absent some other exception to the warrant requirement.”10 But significantly, the defendant in Olevik only refused to submit to the breath test, arguing that the results of the test, not the refusal, were inadmissible.11 So, arguably, any discussion of blood testing in Olevik could be considered non-binding dicta.12 Finally, in Randall v. State,13 although the Supre | 1 | 1 |
State v. Randallgreen2 sentences2024Thus, Williams did not address whether a refusal to submit to a blood test is admissible evidence. 8 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017). 9 Id. at 231 (2) (a). a constitutional right to refuse to consent to warrantless blood tests, absent some other exception to the warrant requirement.”10 But significantly, the defendant in Olevik only refused to submit to the breath test, arguing that the results of the test, not the refusal, were inadmissible.11 So, arguably, any discussion of blood testing in Olevik could be considered non-binding dicta.12 Finally, in Randall v. State,13 although the Supre 2024Thus, Williams did not address whether a refusal to submit to a blood test is admissible evidence. 8 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017). 9 Id. at 231 (2) (a). a constitutional right to refuse to consent to warrantless blood tests, absent some other exception to the warrant requirement.”10 But significantly, the defendant in Olevik only refused to submit to the breath test, arguing that the results of the test, not the refusal, were inadmissible.11 So, arguably, any discussion of blood testing in Olevik could be considered non-binding dicta.12 Finally, in Randall v. State,13 although the Supre | 1 | 1 |
State v. Randallgreen2 sentences2024Thus, Williams did not address whether a refusal to submit to a blood test is admissible evidence. 8 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017). 9 Id. at 231 (2) (a). a constitutional right to refuse to consent to warrantless blood tests, absent some other exception to the warrant requirement.”10 But significantly, the defendant in Olevik only refused to submit to the breath test, arguing that the results of the test, not the refusal, were inadmissible.11 So, arguably, any discussion of blood testing in Olevik could be considered non-binding dicta.12 Finally, in Randall v. State,13 although the Supre 2024Thus, Williams did not address whether a refusal to submit to a blood test is admissible evidence. 8 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017). 9 Id. at 231 (2) (a). a constitutional right to refuse to consent to warrantless blood tests, absent some other exception to the warrant requirement.”10 But significantly, the defendant in Olevik only refused to submit to the breath test, arguing that the results of the test, not the refusal, were inadmissible.11 So, arguably, any discussion of blood testing in Olevik could be considered non-binding dicta.12 Finally, in Randall v. State,13 although the Supre | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Olevik v. State
green
2 sentences2024Thus, Williams did not address whether a refusal to submit to a blood test is admissible evidence. 8 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017). 9 Id. at 231 (2) (a). a constitutional right to refuse to consent to warrantless blood tests, absent some other exception to the warrant requirement.”10 But significantly, the defendant in Olevik only refused to submit to the breath test, arguing that the results of the test, not the refusal, were inadmissible.11 So, arguably, any discussion of blood testing in Olevik could be considered non-binding dicta.12 Finally, in Randall v. State,13 although the Supre 2024Thus, Williams did not address whether a refusal to submit to a blood test is admissible evidence. 8 302 Ga. 228 ( 806 SE2d 505 ) (2017). 9 Id. at 231 (2) (a). a constitutional right to refuse to consent to warrantless blood tests, absent some other exception to the warrant requirement.”10 But significantly, the defendant in Olevik only refused to submit to the breath test, arguing that the results of the test, not the refusal, were inadmissible.11 So, arguably, any discussion of blood testing in Olevik could be considered non-binding dicta.12 Finally, in Randall v. State,13 although the Supre | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2016The trial court first found that the State presented sufficient evidence of both DUI counts and the moving violation to meet the standards of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 2016The trial court first found that the State presented sufficient evidence of both DUI counts and the moving violation to meet the standards of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 ( 99 SCt 2781 , 61 LE2d 560) (1979). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.