State v. Webb, A94A0369
| Decision Date | 29 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A0369,A94A0369 |
| Citation | 212 Ga.App. 872,443 S.E.2d 630 |
| Parties | The STATE v. WEBB. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Keith C. Martin, Sol., for appellant.
Thomas W. Moody, Atlanta, John H. Tarpley, Decatur, for appellee.
Michael R. Hauptman, Gerald R. Weber, Goodman & Bush, James E. Goodman, Norman L. Smith, Atlanta, amici curiae.
The State of Georgia appeals the trial court's suppression of a test showing .30 percent blood-alcohol content in Curtis Stacey Webb following his arrest for driving while under the influence.
Webb was stopped at a roadblock about 2:00 a.m. The officer who stopped him was immediately made aware that Webb is hearing and speech impaired. The arresting officer communicated his implied consent rights to Webb through Webb's friend, Kendall, who had been in the car behind Webb's car when Webb was stopped. Kendall used sign language to convey the officer's statements and requests to Webb, and Webb indicated that he understood. The officer showed Webb a form with the implied consent laws printed on it and indicated each line with his finger so that Webb could read it. The interpreter initialed the card where Webb signed it. It was not contended at the hearing on motion to suppress that the interpreter was incompetent or did not adequately convey the officer's statements and requests. There was evidence from Webb's mother that Webb could not have fully understood the language of the statement even by sign language unless the words were simplified for him. The trial court found as stipulated that "if the [arresting] officers had called the Georgia Registry of Interpreters [see OCGA § 24-9-101(4) ] between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., when this arrest occurred, they would have reached an answering machine."
The trial court found that "if the steps required in OCGA § 24-9-103 had been followed, and defendant did not understand the warnings after a qualified interpreter had translated them ... or if the defendant had not understood the warnings after reading them more than one hour from the time that an interpreter was requested [see OCGA § 24-9-103(b) ], then the warnings and the results of the Intoximeter would have been admissable [and] ... State v. Tosar, [180 Ga.App. 885, 350 S.E.2d 811] ... might have applied." But as the officer did not wait one hour before determining that a "qualified interpreter" (see OCGA § 24-9-101(6)) was not available, the trial court held that the implied consent warning was given in violation of § 24-9-103 and that the blood tests were inadmissible. Held:
The trial court erred in suppressing this evidence.
OCGA § 24-9-103(b)(1), provides: "No interrogation, warning, informing of rights, taking of statements, or other investigatory procedures shall be undertaken until a qualified interpreter has been provided; and no ... evidence acquired from the hearing impaired person shall be admissible in any criminal ... proceeding unless such was knowingly and voluntarily given through and in the presence of a qualified interpreter." "Qualified interpreter" is defined at OCGA § 24-9-101(6).
The implied consent laws differ from others giving certain rights in that every driver's consent to a chemical test for intoxication is implied by law. The legislature has declared as a matter of law that persons having an excess of .10 percent grams blood-alcohol concentration "constitute a direct and immediate threat to the welfare and safety of the general public." (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 40-5-55(a). (Emphasis supplied.) Id.
Under the implied consent laws, every driver is deemed to have given his consent to a chemical test for alcohol content, subject only to the duty Snelling v. State, 176 Ga.App. 192, 193, 335 S.E.2d 475; Tosar, supra. In all cases the court is required to find only that the implied consent law was conveyed to the suspect driver. The State is under no duty to prove the suspect driver fully understood his rights under the implied consent law. Tosar, supra. In this respect a hearing impaired driver does not have greater rights and privileges than a hearing driver.
Under OCGA § 40-6-392, the trial court need only find that Webb's right to an additional test was communicated to him. The legislature did not intend to contravene the laws relating to DUI by imposing impossible or impractical conditions on law enforcement agencies when arresting hearing impaired persons for driving under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kitchens v. State
...(1987). State v. Causey, 215 Ga. App. 85, 86, 449 S.E.2d 639 (1994). We also find unavailing the state's reliance on State v. Webb, 212 Ga.App. 872, 443 S.E.2d 630 (1994), for the proposition that because Kitchens "was simply confused," no harm has been shown. The notice given in Webb was n......
-
State v. Simmons, A04A1671.
...of their own choosing and that the refusal to submit to State testing is admissible in evidence against them. Id.; State v. Webb, 212 Ga.App. 872, 873, 443 S.E.2d 630 (1994); see OCGA §§ 40-5-55(a);2 40-5-67.1." `OCGA § 40-5-67.1 ... allows the person to withdraw his implied consent by refu......
-
State v. Bishop
...of a language barrier. Nevertheless, KDR cites to several cases from other jurisdictions which are persuasive. See State v. Webb, 212 Ga.App. 872, 443 S.E.2d 630 (1994) (hearing- and speech-impaired defendant); State v. Tosar, 180 Ga.App. 885, 350 S.E.2d 811 (1986) (Spanish-speaking defenda......
-
State v. Stewart
...term "implied consent" indicates, "every driver's consent to a chemical test for intoxication is implied by law." State v. Webb, 212 Ga.App. 872, 873, 443 S.E.2d 630 (1994). Specifically, everyone who operates a motor vehicle in Georgia implicitly consents to the chemical testing of their b......
-
Administrative hearings
...the statute had not been complied with and, accordingly, the breath test should not be admitted into evidence. In State v. Webb , 443 S.E.2d 630 (Ga. App. 1994), the court bad held that OCGA §24-9-103(b)(1) had been complied with where a qualified interpreter informed the defendant of the r......
-
Rodriguez v. State: Addressing Georgia's Implied Consent Requirements for Non-english-speaking Drivers - Adam Ferrell
...463 S.E.2d 522, 524 (1995); State v. Woody, 215 Ga. App. 448, 450, 449 S.E.2d 615, 616-17(1994)). 58. Id. (quoting State v. Webb, 212 Ga. App. 872, 873-74, 443 S.E.2d 630, 632 (1994)). 59. Id., 566 S.E.2d at 323-24 (quoting Webb, 212 Ga. App. at 874, 443 S.E.2d at 632). 60. 212 Ga. App. 872......