The State v. Depol, 336 Ga. App. 191

Scott Depol was stopped after his vehicle struck fixed property; deputies found him at an auto parts store trying to change a tire and unable to locate insurance information.
Interaction lasted about 45 minutes; deputies observed swaying and difficulty using his cell phone; one deputy later administered an alcosensor which read about twice the legal limit.
Deputies placed Depol under arrest ~14 minutes after the alcosensor; after arrest and being read the implied-consent warning, Depol agreed to a state-administered breath test.
Trial court initially denied a suppression motion (finding probable cause, reasonable detention, and timely implied-consent warning).
After Williams v. State, Depol filed a supplemental suppression motion; the trial court reversed and suppressed, finding his intoxication prevented voluntary consent to the breath test.
Court of Appeals reviewed the videotape de novo and reversed the suppression order, concluding Depol voluntarily consented despite intoxication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consent to breath test was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment	State: totality of circumstances show Depol understood and freely consented after implied-consent warning	Depol: extreme intoxication rendered him incapable of voluntarily consenting	Held: Consent was voluntary; video shows sufficient capacity and free will to consent
Whether intoxication alone precludes voluntary consent	State: intoxication is not dispositive; capacity assessed under totality of circumstances per Schneckloth	Depol: apparent intoxication deprived him of ability to form voluntary choice	Held: Intoxication does not automatically invalidate consent; here capacity existed
Whether trial court misapplied legal standard post-Williams	State: trial court applied wrong emphasis by focusing on waiver of Fourth Amendment rather than consent analysis	Depol: Williams supports suppression where intoxication vitiates consent	Held: Court of Appeals applied correct Schneckloth/Williams totality test and found evidence mandated reversal
Whether videotaped facts allow de novo review and require reversal	State: video makes controlling facts undisputed and supports voluntariness	Depol: trial court relied on its findings of impairment from same video	Held: Video reviewed de novo; it demonstrates sufficient capacity and voluntary consent

Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (concerning voluntariness of consent under implied-consent context)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for voluntary consent to searches)
State v. Mosley, 321 Ga. App. 236 (de novo review of facts discernible from patrol-car video)