DUIGeorgia Implied Consent Ruling
October 4, 2005
ATLANTA -- The implied consent law which gives law enforcement officers power to require chemical tests of suspected drunken drivers in certain circumstances survived a challenge Monday before the Georgia Supreme Court.
But in a pair of related cases, consolidated into one ruling, the court made clear there are limits to that power.
Chemical tests can only be required if two conditions are met: an individual has been involved in a traffic accident resulting in serious injuries or deaths and the investigating officer has probable cause to believe the individual was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
The decision was unanimous.
The court ruled two years ago that the implied consent law was unconstitutional to the extent it required a blood test regardless of whether an officer had probable cause to believe the driver was under the influence.
Monday's ruling resulted from new challenges filed by two men charged with driving under the influence after separate car crashes.
Lawyers for the state argued this summer that the Supreme Court's earlier ruling did not apply to the two men because police had probable cause to suspect both of drunken driving.
While leaving the implied consent law intact, the court's decision Monday produced different results for the two men challenging it.
In one, the court dismissed a claim that the defendant was not properly placed under arrest before his implied consent rights were read to him. The court said he had been injured in a traffic accident, the officer had probable cause to believe he was under the influence and no arrest was required.
In the other, however, there was no injury as defined by the law, even though there was probable cause for the investigator to believe he was drinking. His lawyers argued that his refusal to submit to a blood test should have been suppressed at trial because he was not arrested before his implied consent rights were read.
The Supreme Court agreed.
In the News
