Bailey v. the State
338 Ga. App. 428
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Single-vehicle crash: Bailey was seriously injured (femur fracture) and unconscious; a box with drugs and syringes was found next to the car.
- At the hospital, a state trooper ordered blood and urine samples from the unconscious Bailey without a warrant.
- Bailey was charged with drug-possession counts, DUI (per se: methamphetamine present), DUI (less safe: combined influence), and failure to maintain lane.
- Trial court denied Bailey’s motion to suppress the blood and urine results; a jury convicted him on all counts and the court merged the two DUI counts for sentencing.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether statutory implied consent alone justified the warrantless seizure from an unconscious suspect in light of McNeely and Georgia’s Williams decision.
Issues
| Issue | Bailey's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether taking blood/urine from an unconscious crash victim without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment | Implied-consent notice not given; unconscious Bailey could not give actual, voluntary consent | OCGA § 40-5-55 deems consent where accident caused serious injuries; implied-consent notice not required for unconscious suspects | Implied consent alone insufficient post-McNeely/Williams; warrant or exigency required — suppression of tests warranted |
| Whether statutory implied-consent requirements satisfy constitutional consent | Statutory deemed consent does not equal actual voluntary consent under totality-of-circumstances test | Compliance with implied-consent statute justified sampling under Georgia law | Court followed Williams: statutory compliance does not per se satisfy Fourth Amendment; actual consent must be shown |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless draw | No evidence of exigency or inability to obtain warrant while suspect transported | Probable cause and serious injuries justified warrantless collection under prior Georgia precedent | No evidence the State sought a warrant or that exigency existed; State failed to meet burden to show exigency |
| Remedy / sufficiency of evidence for DUI convictions absent toxicology results | Toxicology was sole competent evidence for DUI (per se); toxicology strongly influenced less-safe verdict | Toxicology admissible; other facts (accident, odor, partying, drug paraphernalia) support convictions | DUI (per se) reversed for insufficient evidence and may not be retried; DUI (less safe) verdict vacated (constitutional error not harmless) and may not be retried |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeely v. Missouri, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create a per se exigency; warrant generally required absent case-specific exigency)
- Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 (2015) (statutory implied consent does not automatically equal actual voluntary consent; voluntariness must be assessed under the totality of circumstances)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. _ (2016) (breath tests permissible under Fourth Amendment; blood draws are more intrusive and may require a warrant or exigency; implied-consent statutes cannot criminalize refusal)
- Snyder v. State, 283 Ga. 211 (2008) (construing OCGA §§ 40-5-55 and 40-5-67.1 together regarding implied consent and serious-injury situations)