MACMASTER v. the STATE.
809 S.E.2d 478
Ga. Ct. App.2018Background
- Early morning traffic stop after officer observed MacMaster repeatedly fail to maintain her lane; officer smelled alcohol and spoke with MacMaster, who admitted drinking and provided her license.
- Second deputy conducted standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand) and observed multiple impairment clues; MacMaster declined an Alco-Sensor preliminary breath test (officer treated this as a refusal).
- MacMaster was arrested for DUI and taken to the county detention center, where she was read Georgia’s implied consent notice and consented to a State-administered Intoxilyzer 9000 breath test, which produced BAC readings of .166 and .159.
- MacMaster moved in limine to exclude (1) evidence of her consent to and the results of the State-administered breath test, and (2) evidence of her refusal to take the Alco-Sensor preliminary test, arguing Fourth, Fifth, and Georgia constitutional violations; the trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing and dash-cam review.
- Jury convicted MacMaster of DUI per se, DUI less safe, and failure to maintain lane; the trial court later merged DUI less safe into DUI per se for sentencing. MacMaster appealed denial of the motion in limine and denial of her motion for new trial on general grounds.
Issues
| Issue | MacMaster's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State-administered breath test and results should be excluded as an unconstitutional warrantless search (Fourth Amendment/GA Const.) | Consent was not voluntary; implied consent acceptance alone insufficient; test was a warrantless search requiring suppression | Consent was voluntary under the totality; breath test also permissible as search incident to arrest (Birchfield) | Court affirmed: consent voluntary under totality; breath test also valid as search-incident-to-arrest, so admissible |
| Whether admission of consent and breath-test results violated privilege against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment & GA Paragraph XVI) | Admission of her verbal consent and results compelled testimonial evidence and violated self-incrimination protections | Breath-test results and verbal consent are non-testimonial under Fifth Amendment; under GA Paragraph XVI, voluntariness controls and here consent was voluntary | Court held no Fifth Amendment violation (non-testimonial); no Paragraph XVI violation because consent was voluntary |
| Whether Miranda warnings were required before obtaining consent to the State-administered breath test | Consent was obtained in custody before Miranda warnings, so should be suppressed | Miranda warnings not required for non-testimonial breath evidence; Georgia precedent (Coe) does not require Miranda before deciding to submit to chemical test | Court held Miranda not required to admit consent or breath-test evidence under federal law; declined to overrule Coe under Georgia law absent argument |
| Whether refusal to take Alco-Sensor preliminary breath test was admissible | Refusal to warrantless Alco-Sensor should be protected (Fourth Amendment) and not usable against her at trial | Refusal to submit to preliminary breath testing is admissible circumstantial evidence under implied consent jurisprudence; any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence | Court held refusal admissible; even if error, admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as evidence of guilt was overwhelming |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. State, 286 Ga. App. 415 (trial-court factual findings reviewed in light most favorable to court)
- Price v. State, 303 Ga. App. 859 (standard for reviewing motion-in-limine/suppression rulings)
- State v. Allen, 298 Ga. 1 (appellate deference to trial-court factual findings; videotape exceptions)
- Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 (rejecting per se rule equating implied-consent notice acceptance with constitutional consent)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (warrantless breath tests permissible as searches incident to arrest)
- Olevik v. State, 806 S.E.2d 505 (Georgia discussion of Paragraph XVI voluntariness and implied-consent issues)