305 Ga. 758
Ga.2019Background
- Defendant Stephen Turnquest was arrested for DUI after a single-vehicle accident in March 2017; after arrest the officer read the Georgia implied-consent notice but did not give Miranda warnings, and Turnquest submitted a breath sample.
- Turnquest moved to suppress the breath-test results, arguing (1) Georgia law (Paragraph XVI and OCGA § 24-5-506) requires Miranda-like warnings before asking an in-custody suspect to perform an incriminating act (breath test), and (2) the implied-consent advisement was misleading.
- Trial court granted suppression based on Price v. State (which held Miranda warnings must precede field sobriety tests when suspect is in custody).
- State appealed; Supreme Court of Georgia analyzed whether Georgia Constitution (Paragraph XVI and Paragraph I) or OCGA § 24-5-506 require Miranda-style warnings before a custodial breath test.
- Court concluded neither Paragraph XVI (self-incrimination), Paragraph I (due process), nor OCGA § 24-5-506 require such warnings, overruled Price to that extent, vacated the suppression order, and remanded for consideration of Turnquest’s alternative implied-consent claim in light of Elliott.
Issues
| Issue | Turnquest's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia Constitution (Paragraph XVI) requires Miranda-style warnings before requesting a custodial breath test | Paragraph XVI (state protection against compelled self-incrimination) is broader and, per Olevik, covers incriminating acts; therefore Miranda-like warnings must precede such requests | Paragraph XVI’s original public meaning (carried from 1877) does not require prophylactic warnings; failure to warn alone does not render an act “compelled” | No — Paragraph XVI does not require Miranda-style warnings before a custodial breath test |
| Whether Georgia due process (Paragraph I) independently requires Miranda-style warnings before a custodial breath test | Due process (like Miranda’s due-process rationale) should require prophylactic warnings to protect voluntariness | Text, history, and context of Paragraph I do not show such a requirement; federal due-process precedent does not impose a warning for breath tests either | No — Paragraph I does not require such warnings |
| Whether OCGA § 24-5-506(a) (former § 24-9-20) mandates warnings before asking an in-custody suspect to perform an incriminating act | The statute’s protection against compellability should be enforced via a warning requirement | Statute’s text and long history do not impose a warning obligation; prior cases did not establish such a statutory rule | No — OCGA § 24-5-506(a) does not require warnings |
| Whether stare decisis requires retaining Price v. State (which required Miranda warnings before field sobriety tests when in custody) | Price was precedent protecting suspects; overturning it harms reliance and is unnecessary | Price’s reasoning was unsound and unsupported by Georgia text, history, or statute; other stare decisis factors do not outweigh correcting error | Overruled Price to the extent it required Miranda-style warnings under Georgia law; vacated suppression and remanded to consider Turnquest’s alternative implied-consent argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (established prophylactic warnings for custodial interrogation under federal law)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (breath/blood tests are non-testimonial; Fifth Amendment does not reach physical acts)
- Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228 (2017) (Georgia Clause prohibits compelled incriminating acts as well as testimony)
- Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 (2019) (Georgia Constitution bars use of a defendant’s invocation of privilege; guides state-constitutional analysis)
- Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222 (1998) (held Miranda warnings required before field sobriety tests for in-custody suspects; overruled to extent inconsistent with this opinion)
- Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569 (1993) (discussed admissibility of refusal evidence where suspect not in custody)
- State v. O'Donnell, 225 Ga. App. 502 (1997) (Court of Appeals decision earlier read OCGA § 24-9-20 as requiring warnings; cited in Price)