The State v. Osterloh
342 Ga. App. 668
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 19, 2014, Christopher Osterloh was in a serious vehicle collision and lost consciousness; responders and sheriff’s deputies arrived at the scene.
- Osterloh displayed head injury symptoms (dilated pupils, vomiting blood/purple liquid), was limping, intermittently incoherent, and at times screamed or uttered gibberish; deputies pinned and handcuffed him to the ground.
- While restrained and physically assisted, a deputy read Georgia’s implied-consent notice for blood testing; Osterloh at one point replied “yeah” when asked if he would submit to a State-administered blood test. He never expressly refused.
- Osterloh was transported to the hospital, combative during the blood draw and later placed in a medically induced coma for three days; he was subsequently charged with DUI-related offenses.
- Osterloh moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing his consent was involuntary; the trial court granted suppression, finding he was “incapable of making any kind of rational decision.” The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to a warrantless blood draw was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment | Osterloh: injuries, incoherence, being pinned, and vomiting rendered any consent involuntary | State: video shows comprehension and affirmative response, no threats or promises | Consent was involuntary; suppression affirmed — totality of circumstances showed incapacity to give free consent |
| Whether an affirmative reply to implied-consent warning alone satisfies voluntariness | Osterloh: affirmative reply insufficient given impaired state | State: affirmative reply reflects actual consent | Court: affirmative reply is not dispositive; State must prove voluntariness under totality of circumstances |
| Burden of proof for consent exception to warrant requirement | Osterloh: State bears burden to show consent was free and voluntary | State: essentially relied on conduct and video to show voluntariness | Court reaffirmed that State has the burden to prove voluntariness |
| Whether police should instead obtain a warrant when voluntariness is doubtful | Osterloh: warrant required when consent doubtful | State: obtaining warrant burdens officers | Court: if a warrant can reasonably be obtained without undermining the search, Fourth Amendment requires obtaining it; here voluntariness was doubtful, so warrant option available |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 (Supreme Court of Georgia) (mere compliance with implied-consent statute does not automatically establish voluntary consent; voluntariness must be determined under the totality of circumstances)
- Cooper v. State, 277 Ga. 282 (Georgia Supreme Court) (withdrawal of blood is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. Supreme Court) (warrantless searches conducted outside judicial process are presumptively unreasonable)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. Supreme Court) (warrants generally required for searches of a person except in narrow exigent circumstances)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. Supreme Court) (police must obtain a warrant to draw blood absent exigent circumstances; exigency assessed case-by-case)
- McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (U.S. Supreme Court) (absence of a search warrant must be justified by exigent circumstances)
- Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 (Georgia Supreme Court) (appellate review principles for suppression hearings; deference to trial court fact findings)
- State v. Allen, 298 Ga. 1 (Georgia Supreme Court) (appellate courts may rely on uncontradicted videotape evidence to resolve facts)
- State v. Conner, 322 Ga. App. 636 (Georgia Court of Appeals) (review of trial court’s application of law to undisputed facts is de novo)