Defendant complained that he was denied due process because the implied consent notice read to him failed to inform him that his refusal to submit to chemical testing would result in his lifetime disqualification from having a commercial driver’s license. Court held due process does not require that the arresting officer inform the driver of all the consequences of refusing to submit to testing because the officer had made it clear that refusing the test was not a safe harbor, free of adverse consequences.
After defendant was charged with driving under the influence (DUI), the State Court, Douglas County, W. O’Neal Dettmering, J., granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of his refusal to submit to Stateadministered chemical testing following his arrest. State appealed. The Court of Appeals, 728 S.E.2d 241, reversed. Defendant petitioned for writ of certiorari, which was granted. The Supreme Court held that police officer’s failure to inform defendant that test refusal could be used against him in criminal proceeding rendered notice inadequate. Court of Appeals judgment reversed.
Defendant was convicted in the State Court, Troup County, of operating commercial vehicle without having been issued class A driver’s license. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Andrews, P.J., held that evidence was sufficient to support conviction. Affirmed.
There are no additional resources.
