Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Hearing impaired person arrested for driving under the influence was not entitled to a qualified interpreter before the person's rights under the implied consent law were conveyed to the person by the arresting officer. State v. Webb, 212 Ga. App. 872, 443 S.E.2d 630 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Giving implied consent card inadequate.

- Qualified interpreter was required to be present to convey implied consent warnings and rights to an impaired person before any questioning or advice was given and an officer's giving the person an "implied consent card" to read and writing an explanation were not sufficient. Allen v. State, 218 Ga. App. 844, 463 S.E.2d 522 (1995) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Impact of one-hour waiting period.

- When police have made a request for an interpreter and one has been provided, after the one-hour waiting period elapses, the police may proceed with their investigation under the implied consent laws. If, however, the impaired person intelligently waives the one-hour requirement, the police may proceed with written interrogatories and the person should answer in writing, and then the police may proceed under the implied consent law. Allen v. State, 218 Ga. App. 844, 463 S.E.2d 522 (1995) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Arresting officer failed to comply with statutory procedures.

- DUI conviction was reversed when the arresting officer failed to comply with the statutory procedures for communicating with a hearing-impaired detainee because the requirements in the statute were mandatory, and if not met, the evidence acquired was not admissible under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103. Yates v. State, 248 Ga. App. 35, 545 S.E.2d 169 (2001) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Non hearing-impaired defendant's equal protection argument failed when the defendant could not meet the defendant's burden to show that former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103 was arbitrary or otherwise not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Sisson v. State, 232 Ga. App. 61, 499 S.E.2d 422 (1998) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Failing to object to presence of interpreters.

- With regard to two defendants' convictions for murder, the defendants failed to show that the defendants received ineffective assistance of counsel based on the defendants' respective trial counsel failing to object to the presence of two sign language interpreters in the jury room as the trial court had the two interpreters take an oath swearing that, during jury deliberations, the interpreters would merely interpret and not interject the interpreters' personal opinions, conclusions, or comments. The defendants failed to present a shred of evidence that the interpreters did anything other than comply fully with the oath taken and that trial counsel had any reasons to suspect the interpreters did otherwise. Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 599, 669 S.E.2d 98 (2008) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Impact of failure to comply with procedure.

- When the arresting officer failed to comply with the procedure in former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103, such failure rendered blood test results inadmissible. State v. Woody, 215 Ga. App. 448, 449 S.E.2d 615 (1994) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).

Application to Spanish speaking people.

- Defendant's constitutional claims to the implied consent statutes were without merit since defendant, a Spanish speaking person, was not similarly situated to a hearing impaired person and, although similarly situated to an English-speaking person, there was a rational basis for requiring the implied consent warnings to be read in English. Rodriguez v. State, 275 Ga. 283, 565 S.E.2d 458 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-103).