Fazio v. State, 302 Ga. 295

Fazio was convicted after a bench trial of DUI less safe to drive and DUI with unlawful BAC.
Arrest followed a Gwinnett County road-block stop; officer observed intoxication signs and FC1 failed field sobriety tests.
At arrest, officer gave implied consent notice under OCGA 40-5-67.1(b)(2); Fazio verbally agreed to a breath test.
Fazio was taken to an Intoxilyzer 9000; two breath samples indicated BAC above the legal limit; no objections by Fazio during testing.
Fazio moved to suppress breath test results on constitutional grounds; trial court denied.
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting challenges to the implied consent statute and preserved self-incrimination arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether implied consent notice violates Fourth Amendment/Georgia Const.	Fazio argues coercive and unconstitutional notice.	State contends statute permits breath tests as incident to arrest; not unconstitutional.	Statute not unconstitutional as search incident to arrest.
Whether implied consent notice is coercive or misleading on its face.	Statute may mislead and coerce refusals or testing.	No widespread confusion; notice not coercive on its face.	Facial challenge rejected; no evidence of coercion from notice alone.
Whether breath test violates right against compelled self-incrimination.	Breath test requires active blowing; potential self-incrimination.	Argument not preserved; waiver rule applies; others raised.	Not reviewable on preserved basis; breath test not unconstitutionally coercive when used with implied consent.

Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228 (2017) (implied consent notice not COERCIVE; search incident to arrest permits breath test)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (breath test permissible without warrant; blood test requires warrant)
Amos v. State, 298 Ga. 804 (2016) (preservation requirement for constitutional challenges)