Georgia State Troopers suspected that Jessica Reid was driving under the influence (DUI) and stopped her. She consented verbally to a blood test and provided written consent that she understood the purpose of the test. During her trial, Ms. Reid filed a Motion to Suppress those results, feeling threatened that she would lose her driver’s license if she did not acquiesce. Chatham Superior Court agreed and felt that her consent was not voluntary.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s decision. In accordance with Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 (2015), the Court noted that her “affirmative response to the question posed by the implied consent language may be sufficient to find actual consent.” The trooper’s video showed that Ms. Reid seemed to comprehend her situation clearly during the field sobriety test, and she articulately implored the trooper to release her. The recording also demonstrated that the officers were not coercive. The Appeals Court showed that the trial court mistakenly granted Ms. Reid’s Motion to Suppress.
Georgia Court of Appeals That Conditional Statements Don’t Impact the Determination of Terroristic Threats