The State v. Licata.
343 Ga. App. 874
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Licata was involved in a hit-and-run traffic accident, drove about a mile before being stopped by Forsyth County deputies; vehicle had severe tire damage and officer observed driving violations.
- At the scene an arresting officer read Licata a Miranda warning, questioned him, then administered standardized field sobriety tests. Licata was arrested after the tests.
- After arrest the officer read Georgia’s Implied Consent notice and requested a state-administered breath test; Licata asked to call an attorney and was told he was not entitled to consult counsel before deciding whether to submit to the breath test. Licata refused the breath test.
- Licata moved to suppress the field sobriety-test results and evidence of his refusal to take the breath test; the trial court granted suppression based on Georgia constitutional protections and the ‘‘confusion doctrine’’ (Miranda warning allegedly causing belief in right to counsel).
- The State appealed. The Court of Appeals considered (1) whether Miranda warnings sufficiently informed Licata of Georgia constitutional protections against compelled physical evidence (field sobriety tests) and (2) whether Licata was entitled to counsel before deciding whether to submit to the implied-consent breath test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Licata) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of field sobriety-test results | Miranda warning was sufficient; results admissible | Trial court: Georgia Constitution requires additional warning re: right not to perform physical acts; suppression required | Reversed trial court; Miranda warning suffices under Georgia law per Price and related precedent, so tests admissible |
| Whether Miranda warning must expressly mention right not to perform physical acts | State: Miranda adequate to cover Georgia-implied protections | Licata: Miranda addresses only testimonial silence, not compelled physical evidence; needed additional Georgia-specific warning | Court: Price controls; Miranda warnings are sufficient even for Georgia-specific protection in this context |
| Admissibility of evidence of refusal to take breath test | Officer correctly informed Licata he was not entitled to counsel before deciding; refusal admissible | Licata: Miranda warning caused belief he could consult counsel, so refusal should be suppressed (confusion doctrine) | Reversed trial court; defendant not entitled to counsel before implied-consent breath test; officer’s statements were clear, so refusal admissible |
| Whether officer misled defendant about right to counsel before breath test (confusion) | No; officer twice clarified no right to consult counsel before deciding on breath test | Yes; Miranda reading earlier could confuse and cause belief in right to counsel prior to test | Court: Boger distinguished; no misleading statements here—suppression was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222 (holding Miranda warnings must precede field sobriety tests when suspect is in custody; Miranda sufficient under Georgia law for this purpose)
- Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 511 (Georgia Constitution protects against compelled production of oral or real evidence)
- Rackoff v. State, 281 Ga. 306 (no right to counsel when deciding whether to submit to an implied-consent chemical test)
- State v. Boger, 253 Ga. App. 412 (confusion doctrine; suppression warranted where officer’s statements could mislead defendant about right to counsel before breath test)
- State v. Dixon, 267 Ga. App. 320 (field sobriety tests given in custody admissible only if preceded by Miranda warnings)
- State v. O’Donnell, 225 Ga. App. 502 (field sobriety tests given to person under arrest without Miranda warnings are inadmissible)