Lee v. State, 324 Ga. App. 28

Lee was stopped June 17, 2011 for driving on the wrong side of the road; officers detected a strong odor of alcohol and observed bloodshot, glazed eyes.
Lee performed field sobriety tests, failed horizontal gaze nystagmus, refused an alco-sensor, and asked for a blood test.
Lee, an English-as-a-second-language speaker, indicated he did not understand the implied consent notice.
At the jail, Lee provided a breath sample with BAC readings of 0.118 and 0.125, and he declined the blood test.
Lee was charged with DUI and driving on the wrong side of the road; he moved to exclude the breath test results, the motion was denied, and he was convicted after a stipulated bench trial; he appeals.
The appeal challenges (1) implied consent withdrawal and (2) equal protection; the trial court admitted the breath test results; the court affirms the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Implied consent admissibility under OCGA 40-5-55(a) and (b)	Lee (Lee) argues non-English speakers cannot be deemed capable of refusing.	Lee contends the court misapplied the language-barrier limitation to withdrawal of consent.	Admissible; non-English-speaking status does not render refusal impossible per 40-5-55(b).
Equal protection claim from language barriers	Lee asserts unequal treatment for limited-English speakers.	The claim was not raised at trial and is waived on appeal.	Waived; no merits discussed.

Furcal-Peguero v. State, 255 Ga. App. 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (non-English-speaking driver not incapable of refusal under 40-5-55(b))
Rodriguez v. State, 275 Ga. 283 (Ga. 2002) (no requirement that notice be read in a language other than English)
State v. Webb, 212 Ga. App. 872 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (implied consent conveyed; no duty to ensure full understanding of rights)
Stewart, 286 Ga. App. 542 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (arresting officer not required to ensure driver understands implied consent notice)