The State v. Williams
337 Ga. App. 791
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Sept. 22, 2012, Williams was stopped for erratic driving, arrested for DUI and failure to maintain lane; officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
- At the scene Williams appeared confused, unsteady, and slurred speech; he admitted taking Lortab and another drug and reported an "equilibrium problem."
- Officer administered field sobriety tests; Williams performed poorly on HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg-stand; officer concluded impairment and arrested him.
- While handcuffed in the patrol car (after arrest and without Miranda warnings), the officer read the statutory implied-consent notice, asked for a blood and urine sample as a "yes or no question," and Williams said "yes." No search warrant or exigency existed.
- At the hospital Williams leaned on the officer for balance, signed consent forms (it was unclear who read the forms to him), gave blood and urine samples; he later abandoned challenge to urine and focused on blood.
- Trial court initially denied suppression; Georgia Supreme Court remanded to determine whether Williams gave actual, voluntary consent; on remand the trial court granted suppression of blood results; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Williams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams actually and voluntarily consented to a state-administered blood draw | Consent was valid: implied-consent notice was read, Williams verbally responded "yes," he was cooperative and indicated understanding | Consent was not voluntary: Williams was highly intoxicated/confused, leaned on officer, had trouble following instructions, and assent was mere acquiescence while handcuffed | Trial court found no actual voluntary consent; Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression of blood-test results |
| Whether trial court applied correct standard (totality of circumstances) | State: trial court should weigh all factors and could infer voluntariness from officer's testimony and the reading of implied-consent form | Williams: Supreme Court required explicit analysis of voluntariness under totality of circumstances; evidence supports involuntariness | Court held trial court applied the totality test appropriately and its factual findings were not clearly erroneous; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 (Ga. 2015) (remanding for determination whether defendant gave actual voluntary consent to blood draw)
- Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 (Ga. 2015) (standard of appellate review of trial-court factual findings on suppression)
- Cooper v. State, 277 Ga. 282 (Ga. 2003) (State bears burden to prove consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances)
- Kendrick v. State, 335 Ga. App. 766 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (factors relevant to voluntariness; consent invalid if obtained by intimidation or coercion)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
- Durrence v. State, 295 Ga. App. 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (appellate deference where record does not demand contrary finding)
- Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822 (Ga. 2012) (high intoxication can render statements involuntary)
- McNear v. State, 326 Ga. App. 32 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (statements admissible only if made with rational intellect and free will)