State v. Turnquest
305 Ga. 758
Ga.2019Background
- In March 2017 Stephen Turnquest was arrested for DUI after a single-vehicle accident; after arrest the officer read the Georgia implied-consent notice (OCGA § 40-5-67.1(b)(2)) but did not give Miranda warnings; Turnquest submitted a breath sample.
- Turnquest moved to suppress the breath-test results, arguing (1) Miranda-like warnings were required under the Georgia Constitution (Paragraph XVI) because submitting to a breath test is an incriminating act, and (2) the implied-consent advisement was misleading and therefore involuntary.
- The trial court granted suppression based on Price v. State (1998), which had required Miranda warnings before field-sobriety tests when the suspect is in custody.
- The State appealed, asking the Supreme Court of Georgia to reconsider Price and to decide whether Georgia constitutional provisions or OCGA § 24-5-506 require Miranda-style warnings before a custodial breath test.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia analyzed the original public meaning, history, and context of Paragraph XVI (right against self-incrimination) and Paragraph I (due process), and considered OCGA § 24-5-506, concluding none require prophylactic Miranda-style warnings before a breath test.
- The court overruled Price to the extent it required such warnings, vacated the trial court’s suppression order, and remanded for consideration of Turnquest’s alternative implied-consent argument in light of Elliott v. State.
Issues
| Issue | Turnquest's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paragraph XVI (Ga. Const.) requires Miranda-style warnings before a custodial breath test | Paragraph XVI (Georgia self-incrimination right) protects incriminating acts and thus requires warnings before asking for a breath test | Paragraph XVI does not require prophylactic warnings; interpret original public meaning, history, context | No — Paragraph XVI does not require Miranda-like warnings before a breath test |
| Whether Paragraph I (due process) independently requires warnings before a custodial breath test | Due process (Paragraph I) supports Miranda-style prophylaxis for custodial settings | Georgia due process, read on its own text/history, does not impose a warning requirement; federal Miranda does not reach breath tests | No — Paragraph I does not require such warnings |
| Whether OCGA § 24-5-506(a) (no person compellable to give evidence against self) requires a warning before a custodial breath test | The statute mandates a warning before seeking incriminating acts from a person charged or in custody | Statute’s text/history do not mandate warnings; statute applies to charged persons and does not create a prophylactic notice requirement | No — OCGA § 24-5-506(a) does not require warnings |
| Whether Price v. State should be retained and applied to breath/field tests | Price requires Miranda warnings for field-sobriety/breath tests in custody; suppression was proper | Price was wrongly decided and rests on unsound reasoning/inapposite authority; should be overruled | Overruled insofar as it requires warnings under Georgia law; trial court’s suppression vacated; remand for consideration of implied-consent challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda prophylaxis and custodial interrogation rule)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (noncommunicative physical evidence not protected by Fifth Amendment testimonial privilege)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (voluntariness doctrine and Miranda relationship to Due Process)
- Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228 (Georgia right against compelled self-incrimination includes incriminating acts; original-meaning approach)
- Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 (Georgia Constitution prohibits admission of evidence of exercise of the state self-incrimination right)
- Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222 (overruled to extent it required Miranda warnings before sobriety tests in custody)
- Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569 (discussed in Price; not a basis for requiring warnings where suspect was in custody)
- State v. O’Donnell, 225 Ga. App. 502 (Court of Appeals decision previously read to require warnings under statute; relied on in Price but rejected here)