Hynes v. the State
341 Ga. App. 500
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Deputy stopped James Hynes for weaving, smelled alcohol, and observed HGN indicators; Hynes refused most field sobriety tests and refused the state-administered blood test under implied consent but said he would "do an independent test."
- Officer obtained a judicial search warrant and had Hynes’s blood drawn over Hynes’s refusal to submit to the state test; no accommodation for an independent test was offered.
- Hynes moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(3) entitles a suspect to an independent test even when the State obtains a warrant.
- Trial court denied suppression, holding the right to an independent test accrues only after a suspect submits to the State test following the implied-consent warning.
- Hynes appealed interlocutorily; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Hynes' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(3) grants a right to an independent test when the State obtains a search warrant after the suspect refuses implied-consent testing | § 40-6-392(a)(3)’s phrase “any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer” includes tests performed pursuant to a search warrant, so Hynes was entitled to an independent test | The independent-test right is tied to implied-consent procedures; subsection (a)(3) applies only to tests administered at an officer’s direction under implied consent, not warrant-ordered tests | The court held no right to an independent test after a warrant draw when the suspect refused implied-consent testing; denial of suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrant and exigent-circumstances context for blood draws)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (rejecting per se exigency rule for warrantless blood draws)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (discussing implied-consent laws and penalties for refusal)
- South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (implied-consent warnings and evidentiary consequences of refusal)
- Padidham v. State, 291 Ga. 99 (Georgia: independent-test right is statutory, not constitutional; tied to implied consent)
- Clegg v. State, 236 Ga. App. 115 (defendant forfeits independent-test right by refusing officer’s implied-consent request)
- Modlin v. State, 176 Ga. App. 83 (statutory right to alternate test attaches only after State performs its test)
- Perano v. State, 250 Ga. 704 (OCGA § 40-6-392 governs procedures for State-administered alcohol testing)
- Jackson v. State, 340 Ga. App. 228 (addressing qualifications for personnel performing drug-related blood analyses)