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.
5 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“If an individual requests an independent test but is unable to obtain it, the results of the State-administered test cannot be used by the State as evidence against him unless the failure to obtain the test is justified.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. State, 261 Ga. App. 633, 636 (2) ( 583 SE2d 489 ) (2003).3 Here, after Henry was read the implied consent notice and asked to consent to a blood test for the second time, he asked the trooper, “so you are saying I can take, my blood, my blood, my doctor can do my blood test and all that?” The trooper responded to Henry’s questio 2020“If an individual requests an independent test but is unable to obtain it, the results of the State-administered test cannot be used by the State as evidence against him unless the failure to obtain the test is justified.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. State, 261 Ga. App. 633, 636 (2) ( 583 SE2d 489 ) (2003).3 Here, after Henry was read the implied consent notice and asked to consent to a blood test for the second time, he asked the trooper, “so you are saying I can take, my blood, my blood, my doctor can do my blood test and all that?” The trooper responded to Henry’s questio | 1 | 2 |
Ladow v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Under this statutory framework, this Court has concluded that when a suspect “requests an independent test but is unable to obtain it, the results of the State-administered test cannot be used by the State as evidence against [him] unless the failure to obtain the test is justified.” Ladow v. State, 256 Ga. App. 726, 728 ( 569 SE2d 572 ) (2002) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2016Under this statutory framework, this Court has concluded that when a suspect “requests an independent test but is unable to obtain it, the results of the State-administered test cannot be used by the State as evidence against [him] unless the failure to obtain the test is justified.” Ladow v. State, 256 Ga. App. 726, 728 ( 569 SE2d 572 ) (2002) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen1 sentence2011Obviously, since even the State argued he would have been entitled to those independent tests if he made the request after the administration of the State’s test, the trial court determined this issue adversely to him. 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 444 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Buttongreen2 sentences1996In making that determination, the trial court must decide if, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer made a reasonable effort to accommodate the accused who seeks an independent test.’ [Cit.]” State v. Button, 206 Ga. App. 673, 674 ( 426 SE2d 194 ) (1992). 1996In making that determination, the trial court must decide if, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer made a reasonable effort to accommodate the accused who seeks an independent test.’ [Cit.]” State v. Button, 206 Ga. App. 673, 674 ( 426 SE2d 194 ) (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.