Joel v. State

CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtJOHNSON, Chief.
CitationJoel v. State, 538 S.E.2d 847, 245 Ga. App. 750 (Ga. App. 2000)
Decision Date31 August 2000
Docket NumberNo. A00A1201.,A00A1201.
PartiesJOEL v. The STATE.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Head, Thomas, Webb & Willis, William C. Head, Atlanta, for appellant.

Leslie C. Abernathy, Solicitor, Laura A. Janssen, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

Matthew Joel files this interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion to exclude the results of a state-administered chemical sobriety test. Because the arresting officer was not justified in refusing to accommodate Joel's request for an independent blood test, the trial court erred in denying the motion. Therefore, we reverse.

OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(3) provides that a person who undergoes a chemical test at the request of a law enforcement officer is entitled to have a qualified person of his own choosing administer an additional test. Law enforcement officers have a corresponding duty not to refuse or fail to allow an accused to exercise the right to have an independent test.1 If the individual requests an independent test but is unable to obtain it, the results of the state-administered test cannot be used by the state as evidence against him unless the failure to obtain the test is justified.2

Joel was driving his car in Forsyth County shortly after midnight when a deputy with the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office stopped him for failing to dim his headlights and failing to stop at a stop sign. The deputy questioned Joel briefly, then, upon detecting an odor of alcohol, radioed an officer with the DUI task force to come to the scene.

The second officer arrived and requested that Joel perform field sobriety tests, which Joel did. The officers then placed Joel in the patrol car and read him the implied consent notice. Joel initially indicated that he would not submit to a chemical test, but, after hearing the notice three times, he agreed to be tested. Joel took the state-administered chemical test at the sheriff's office in Forsyth County, then asked to be taken to Northside Hospital for an independent test. Joel selected Northside Hospital because he was born there, his mother works there, he knows some members of the staff, and he trusts the hospital personnel.

The officer told Joel he was not going to take him "inside of metro Atlanta with four— three other hospitals in the immediate area." In the officer's opinion, the request to take Joel to Northside Hospital was unreasonable because

we had Baptist Medical Center right here that's a full facility. North Fulton, which is a full facility and Gwinnett Medical in Northeast Georgia. With him being in my custody in the back of my car, I did not want to transport him all the way inside of metro Atlanta to an unsafe area that I did not—was not familiar with. I wasn't going to jeopardize myself or him with three other hospitals in this area that were willing to draw his blood.

The officer said it would be "too dangerous for me to take him that far into metro Atlanta." When asked to explain why he thought it would be dangerous, the officer replied that it was a long way, that they could have an accident, that he could get lost, and that something could happen to him or Joel. When the officer was asked where in metro Atlanta Northside Hospital was located, the officer remarked, "I have no idea." The officer took Joel to North Fulton Hospital for his blood test.

The officer testified that it would have been reasonable to drive Joel to Baptist Medical Center, which is in Forsyth County; Gwinnett Medical Center, in Gwinnett County; Northeast Georgia Hospital, in Hall County; or North Fulton Hospital, in Fulton County. According to the officer, North Fulton Hospital is 10-15 minutes from the sheriff's office, Gwinnett Medical Center is 45 minutes from the sheriff's office, and the Hall County facility is 20 minutes from the sheriff's office. The officer did not know how long it would take to drive from the sheriff's office to Northside Hospital, although Joel estimated that it would be a 20- to 25-minute drive. On cross-examination, the officer estimated the travel time between the sheriff's office and the intersection at which Joel testified that Northside Hospital is located to be 20 to 30 minutes. Although it is unclear from the transcript whether the officer actually told Joel that Gwinnett Medical Center was one of his options, the officer testified that that hospital would have been a reasonable choice because he is familiar with the area. He testified that the Forsyth, Gwinnett, North Fulton, and Hall facilities are all "in this area." He added that he "never went inside—I don't go inside the perimeter. I live on the other side of [Forsyth County]." According to the officer, time was not the issue—safety was. The officer added that Joel had the means to pay for the additional test and that the officer was under no pressure to complete the arrest quickly.

Where an officer has failed to obtain an additional test requested by the accused person, it is incumbent on the trial court to determine whether that failure was justified.3 In making that determination, the trial court must decide if, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer made a reasonable effort to accommodate the accused who seeks the independent test.4 Factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) availability of funds to pay for the requested test; (2) a protracted delay in the giving of the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
11 cases
  • Koontz v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 8, 2005
    ...officer." "The state has the burden of showing it complied with the requirements of OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(3)." Joel v. State, 245 Ga.App. 750, 753, 538 S.E.2d 847 (2000). Thus it is incumbent on the trial court to determine, based on the totality of the circumstances, whether the failure or in......
  • State v. Howard, A06A2365.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 2007
    ...of the state's breath test. Judgment affirmed. BLACKBURN, P.J., and ADAMS, J., concur. 1. (Footnotes omitted.) Joel v. State, 245 Ga.App. 750, 751, 538 S.E.2d 847 (2000). See also, e.g., State v. Buffington, 189 Ga.App. 800, 801, 377 S.E.2d 548 (1989). 2. See State v. Terry, 236 Ga.App. 248......
  • Ritter v. the State.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 2010
    ...234, 236, 641 S.E.2d 225 (2007). Accord Brown v. State, 253 Ga.App. 741, 743(2), 560 S.E.2d 316 (2002), citing Joel v. State, 245 Ga.App. 750, 752, 538 S.E.2d 847 (2000). 4. (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) State v. Metzager, 303 Ga.App. 17, 19, 692 S.E.2d 687 (2010). 5. (Punctuation and......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 2002
    ...and ability of accused to make arrangements personally for the testing. (Footnotes and emphasis omitted.) Joel v. State, 245 Ga.App. 750, 751-753, 538 S.E.2d 847 (2000). In finding the State acted reasonably under the circumstances in this case, the trial court found that the officer read t......
  • Get Started for Free