The Associated Press
10/6/2003
ATLANTA (AP) -- The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday overturned a key provision
of the state's implied consent law which required motorists involved in serious
accidents to submit to drug testing or face the loss of driving privileges for
a year.
The statute "authorizes a search and seizure without probable cause"
and violates the state and federal Constitutions, the court ruled in a Barrow
County case.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Thurbert Baker said the ruling removes an
important tool for law enforcement officers in drunk driving cases. "He
is definitely disappointed with the court's decision," said Natalie DiSantis.
Attorney William Doyle Healan III of Winder, who successfully challenged the
law, said, "It's definitely a good thing for individual property rights
and freedoms."
Under the provision the court struck down, any motorist involved in an accident
where serious injury or death occurred was presumed to have given prior consent
to a chemical test to determine the presence or alcohol or other drugs in his
body.
Refusing the test made motorists subject to a suspension of their license for
a minimum of one year. Evidence that they refused to be tested could also be
offered against them at trial.
"While the state's interest in guarding the welfare and safety of its
citizens from the perils caused by intoxicated drivers is beyond dispute, it
is clear that a primary purpose of ... (the provision) is to gather evidence
for criminal prosecution," the court said in an opinion written by Justice
P. Harris Hines.
"No matter how important that purpose may be, it does not create a special
need to depart from the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause. Otherwise,
it could be argued that the state's interest in securing evidence in any situation
of potentially serious criminal conduct would justify dispensing with any finding
of probable cause."
The flaw, the court said, is that the statute compels chemical testing of anyone
involved in an accident resulting in injury or death, regardless of whether
there is any independent reason to believe they are impaired.
While prosecutors warned the ruling could cripple law enforcement efforts, Healan
pointed to the fact that the court left intact a portion of the implied consent
law that requires testing of those arrested for driving under the influence.
"If somebody's knee-walking drunk and a cop sees a bunch of beer bottles
in his car and the person's slurring his speech, certainly the police are going
to be able to request that person's blood," said Healan.
"This is not throwing out all blood, breath and urine tests. It only prevents
police from taking blood, breath or urine when there's been an accident and
police don't have any reason to arrest someone for DUI," he said.
But Clayton County District Attorney Robert Keller said the ruling is "a
huge blow to law enforcement."
One problem could come in cases where someone who caused an accident was impaired
but didn't show the signs that would prompt an officer to arrest and test him.
"Just because you don't smell it, it could still be present. And now, absent
any other independent probable cause, you're not going to be able to test. It's
going to cripple law enforcement," he said.
The challenge arose from a challenge by Carey Don Cooper, who was involved
in a two-vehicle collision in Barrow County in August, 2000. Cooper agreed to
a blood test after being informed of the implied consent law by a state trooper.
The trial judge rejected his motion to suppress results of the drug test. The
appeal followed.