The trial court denied our motion to suppress the results of a state-administered breath test for alcohol under Georgia’s implied consent law after we showed the trial court that our client’s questions reasonably could be construed, in light of the circumstances, to be an expression of a desire for an independent test (no independent test was given). We had a bench trial and appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals. In a “whole court” decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for DUI per se and vacated the conviction for DUI less safe and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial without the admission of the breath test results.
Williams II (State v. Williams), Georgia Court of Appeals, A16A0509 (July 7, 2016)
In Williams v. State, 296 Ga.817, 771 SE2d 373 (2015) The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously vacated my client’s conviction for DUI, abrogated the long-standing DUI per se exigency rule, and remanded the case to the trial court to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, whether my client voluntarily consented to the “required” state administered blood test under Georgia’s implied consent law. Upon remand, the trial court granted our motion to suppress the results of the state-administered blood test finding that my client did not voluntarily consent. The State took the matter up on appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.