williams v. state: where do we go from here?

Gerstenzang • Sessions

C A S E L A W T R I A L S E R I E S

WILLIAMS V. STATEErin H. Gerstenzang | D. Benjamin Sessions

http://www.EHGLawfirm.com

http://Sessionscriminaldefense.com


I M P L I E D C O N S E N T

A C T U A L C O N S E N T

Fo r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n G e o rg i a , t h e t r i a l c o u r t n o w m u s t d e t e r m i n e “ t h e v o l u n t a r i n e ss o f t h e c o n s e n t ” a t a s u p p re ss i o n h ea r i n g c h a l l e n g i n g t h e c h e m i c a l t e s t .

Williams v. State (Case No. S14A1625, decided 3/27/15)


HOW DID WE GET HERE?

1966

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)A warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw, over the driver's objection, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the driver had been lawfully arrested for driving while intoxicated, there was a clear indication that evidence of intoxication would be found from the blood draw, and the arresting officer was confronted with exigent circumstances

2 0 1 5

Actual consent and Implied consent are synonymous in the absence of driver expressing a desire not to give a breath test

2 0 1 3

Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013)

The fact that intoxicants metabolize in the driver's bloodstream does not constitute a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, but is only one factor to be weighed in the analysis

2 0 1 5


The trial court must determine whether actual consent was given, "which would require the determination of the voluntariness of the consent under the totality of the circumstances

2 0 1 4

State v. Padley, 2014 WI App 65,1, 354 Wis. 2d 545

Consent was voluntary where it was not based on false information because the advisement was both accurate and constitutional

People v. Harris, 234 Cal. App. 4th 671, review filed (Apr. 2, 2015)

2 0 1 3

State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (2013)

Consent was voluntary after defendant was permitted to speak with his attorney twice prior to submitting


“Subjecting a person to a breathalyzer test, which generally requires production of alveolar or "deep lung" breath for chemical analysis, see, e.g. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 481(1984), implicates similar concerns about bodily integrity and, like the blood-alcohol test we considered in Schmerber, should also be deemed a search, see W. LaFave, Search and Seizure Sec. 2.6(a), p. 463 (1987).”

P I C T U R E O F A N I N T O X 5 0 0 0

M A C H I N E O R ? ? ?

BREATH TEST IS A SEARCH

Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 616-617 (1989)


“Subjecting a person to a breathalyzer test, which generally requires production of alveolar or "deep lung" breath for chemical analysis, see, e.g. California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 481(1984), implicates similar concerns about bodily integrity and, like the blood-alcohol test we considered in Schmerber, should also be deemed a search, see W. LaFave, Search and Seizure Sec. 2.6(a), p. 463 (1987).”

P I C T U R E O F A N I N T O X 5 0 0 0

M A C H I N E O R ? ? ?

T H E W I L L I A M S T E S T C A S E WA S A B L O O D T E S T. B U T E I T H E R T E S T T Y P E I S A S E A R C H

U N D E R T H E 4 T H A M E N D M E N T.

BREATH TEST IS A SEARCH


SO WHAT HAS CHANGED?

I M P L I E D C O N S E N T

D i d t h e d r i v e r a g re e t o t e s t i n g a ft e r t h e I m p l i e d Co n s e n t

Wa r n i n g w a s rea d ?


Wa s t h e d r i v e r ’s re s p o n s e VO LU N TA R Y f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f

t h e Fo u r t h A m e n d m e n t ?

OLD STANDARD NEW STANDARD


“to yield oneself to the power or authority of another”

SUBMIT CONSENT“voluntarily permitted or expressly

invited and agreed to by the person whose right is involved”

“Georgia law requires you to submit to state- administered tests of your blood, breath …”

”

I M P L I E D C O N S E N T W A R N I N G





“Will you submit to a state-administered chemical test…”

”


D R I V E R WA S N O T A S K E D T O “ C O N S E N T ” … H E WA S

A S K E D T O “ S U B M I T ”


NO GEORGIA APPELLATE DECISION EQUATES "SUBMITTING" TO A SEARCH TO "CONSENTING"

TO A SEARCH





“Georgia law requires you to submit to state- administered tests of your blood, breath …”

”


I N Q U I R Y: I S T H I S E V E N A N A C C U R AT E S TAT E M E N T O F T H E L AW ?


WHAT ABOUT OTHER STATE DECISIONS?


COMPARE TO MINNESOTA STATUTE

"Georgia law requires you to submit to state administered chemical tests of your blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substances …

If you submit to testing and the results indicate an alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams or more …

… Will you submit to the state administered chemical tests of your [designate which tests] under the implied consent law?"

Minnesota law requires [driver] to take a test” to determine if they are “under the influence of alcohol,” that “refusal to take a test is a crime,” and that they have a right to talk to an attorney, “but that this right is limited to the extent that it cannot unreasonably delay administration of the test.

It is a crime for a person to refuse to take a test requested under the implied consent law.

State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (2013)

VS

Georgia Implied Consent Warning


COMPARE TO WISCONSIN STATUTE"Georgia law requires you to submit to state administered chemical tests of your blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substances …



This law enforcement agency now wants to test one or more samples of your breath, blood or urine to determine the concentration of alcohol or drugs in your system. If any test shows more alcohol in your system than the law permits while driving, your operating privilege will be suspended. If you refuse to take any test that this agency requests, your operating privilege will be revoked and you will be subject to other penalties.

The test results or the fact that you refused testing can be used against you in court.

State v. Padley 849 N.W.2d 867, 872-873 (Wis.App. 2014)

VS



COMPARE TO CALIFORNIA CASE




[The officer] advised defendant that he did not have the right to talk to a lawyer when deciding whether to submit to the chemical test, that refusal to submit to the test would result in the suspension of his driver's license, and that refusal could be used against him in court.

People v. Harris, 234 Cal. App. 4th 671, 678, (2015), review filed (Apr. 2, 2015)

VS



COMPARE TO CALIFORNIA CASE




[The officer] advised defendant that he did not have the right to talk to a lawyer when deciding whether to submit to the chemical test, that refusal to submit to the test would result in the suspension of his driver's license, and that refusal could be used against him in court.

People v. Harris, 234 Cal. App. 4th 671, 678, (2015), review filed (Apr. 2, 2015)

VS


WILL IAMS C O U R T H A D T H E O P P O R T U N I T Y T O A D O P T T H E HARR I S S TA N D A R D , B U T S P E C I F I C A L LY R E M A N D E D I N S T E A D F O R A C O M P L E T E F O U R T H A M E N D M E N T

A N A LY S I S


MERE ACQUIESCENCE (SUBMISSION) IS NOT

ENOUGH

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983)

[ I t i s n o t ] d i s p u t e d t h a t w h e re t h e v a l i d i t y o f a s ea rc h re s t s o n c o n s e n t , t h e St a t e h a s t h e b u rd e n o f p ro v i n g t h a t t h e n e c e ss a r y c o n s e n t w a s o b t a i n e d a n d t h a t i t w a s f re e l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y g i v e n , a b u rd e n t h a t i s n o t s a t i s f i e d b y s h o w i n g a m e re s u b m i ss i o n t o a c l a i m o f l a w f u l a u t h o r i t y.”

“



[ A p p e l l a t e c o u r t s ] a re re q u i re d t o s c r u t i n i z e c l o s e l y a n y a l l e g e d c o n s e n t g i v e n b y a s u s p e c t t o t h e p o l i c e , b ea r i n g i n m i n d t h a t m e re a c q u i e s c e n c e t o t h e a u t h o r i t y a ss e r t e d b y a p o l i c e o ff i c e r c a n n o t s u b s t i t u t e f o r f re e c o n s e n t .”

WILLIAMS REMINDS US…


“



US SUPREME COURT FIRST REQUIRES THAT IT BE A FREE

CHOICE

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)

Th e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e a c c u s e d w a s d e p r i v e d o f h i s ‘ f re e c h o i c e t o a d m i t , t o d e n y, o r t o re f u s e t o a n s w e r.”

“



US SUPREME COURT FIRST REQUIRES THAT IT BE A FREE

CHOICE


Th e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e a c c u s e d w a s d e p r i v e d o f h i s ‘ f re e c h o i c e t o a d m i t , t o d e n y, o r t o re f u s e t o a n s w e r.”

“A C T U A L

C O N S E N TT H E C O U R T WA S FA C E D W I T H T H E N E C E S S I T Y O F D E T E R M I N I N G W H E T H E R I N FA C T T H E C O N F E S S I O N S I N I S S U E H A D B E E N ‘ V O L U N TA R I LY ’ G I V E N . 5 I T I S T O T H AT B O D Y O F C A S E L AW T O W H I C H W E T U R N F O R I N I T I A L G U I D A N C E O N T H E M E A N I N G O F ‘ V O L U N TA R I N E S S ' I N T H E P R E S E N T C O N T E X T … I N S U M , T H E R E I S N O R E A S O N F O R U S T O D E PA R T I N T H E A R E A O F C O N S E N T S E A R C H E S , F R O M T H E T R A D I T I O N A L D E F I N I T I O N O F ‘ V O L U N TA R I N E S S . ’ S C H N E C K L O T H V. B U S TA M O N T E , 4 1 2 U . S . 2 1 8 , 2 2 9 , 9 3 S . C T. 2 0 4 1 , 2 0 4 9 , 3 6 L . E D . 2 D 8 5 4 ( 1 9 7 3 )


Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (quotations omitted)

W h e re t h e c h o i c e i s b e t w e e n t h e ro c k a n d t h e w h i r l p o o l , d u re ss i s i n h e re n t i n d e c i d i n g t o w a i v e o n e o r t h e o t h e r. I t a l w a y s i s f o r t h e i n t e re s t o f a p a r t y u n d e r d u re ss t o c h o o s e t h e l e ss e r o f t w o e v i l s . B u t t h e f a c t t h a t a c h o i c e w a s m a d e a c c o rd i n g t o i n t e re s t d o e s n o t exc l u d e d u re ss . I t i s t h e c h a ra c t e r i s t i c o f d u re ss p ro p e r l y s o c a l l e d .“

CHOICE BETWEEN THE ROCK AND THE WHIRLPOOL IS NOT FREE

“


(1) Wa s t h e d e f e n d a n t a w a re o f a s t a t u t e t h a t w o u l d re s u l t i n t e r m i n a t i o n i f d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t c o o p e ra t e ;

(2) D i d d e f e n d a n t s u b j e c t i v e l y b e l i e v e t h a t h e c o u l d l o s e h i s j o b f o r f a i l i n g t o c o o p e ra t e ;

(3) Wa s t h e d e f e n d a n t a w a re o f a n y s t a t u t e s t h a t re q u i re d c o o p e ra t i o n ;

(4) Wa s t h e d e f e n d a n t t o l d h e w a s f re e t o l ea v e a t a n y t i m e ; a n d

(5) W h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s t o l d h e h a d t h e r i g h t t o h a v e a l a w y e r p re s e n t .

THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT ON VOLUNTARINESS FACTORS WHEN LIVELIHOOD IS THREATENED

State v. Aiken, 282 Ga. 132, 135 -36 (2007)


LICENSE IS ESSENTIAL TO LIVELIHOOD

Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539,(1971)

O n c e l i c e n s e s a re i ss u e d … t h e i r c o n t i n u e d p o ss e ss i o n m a y b e c o m e e ss e n t i a l i n t h e p u r s u i t o f a l i v e l i h o o d . S u s p e n s i o n o f i ss u e d l i c e n s e s t h u s i n v o l v e s s t a t e a c t i o n t h a t a d j u d i c a t e s i m p o r t a n t i n t e re s t s o f t h e l i c e n s e e s .”

“


T H R E AT E N E D L O S S O F L I C E N S E

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS?[ E ] v e n i f ex p re ss c o n s e n t w e re s h o w n , t h a t c o n s e n t w a s n o t v o l u n t a r y. ‘A c o n s e n t w h i c h i s t h e p ro d u c t o f c o e rc i o n o r d e c e i t o n t h e p a r t o f t h e p o l i c e i s i n v a l i d .’ ”

State v. Fulghum, 261 Ga. App. 594, 596, 583 S.E.2d 278, 281 (2003)

THE BURDEN FOR ACTUAL

CONSENT

F O R M A L A R R E S T

A G E /E X P E R I E N C E I N T O X I C AT I O NN O M I R A N D A

WA R N I N G

“


Were they physically detained at the time when they gave their consent?

FACTORS THAT WEIGH IN THE TOTALITY OF

THE CIRCUMSTANCES

F O R M A L A R R E S T

This burden on the Government is particularly heavy in cases where the individual is under arrest . Non-resistance to the orders or suggestions of the police is not infrequent in such a situation; true consent , free of fear or pressure, is not so readily to be found.

“

Judd v. U.S. , 190 F.2d 649, 651 (D.C.Cir. 1951)


Was the driver alleged to be intoxicated at the time consent was given?

Gerstenzang & Sessions


THE CIRCUMSTANCES

I N T O X I C AT I O N

In State v. Durrance , the Court of Appeals upheld the granting of a motion to suppress the fruits of a search where the State attempted to prove voluntary consent. One of the off icers testif ied that Durrance was intoxicated, and “this intoxication contributed to the invalidity of the search.”

State v. Durrance, 295 Ga.App. 216 (2008)


Does the driver depend upon the license for his livelihood?

The choice given petit ioners was either to forfeit their jobs or to incriminate themselves. The option to lose their means of l ivel ihood or to pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak out or to remain si lent.

Gerstenzang & Sessions



THE CIRCUMSTANCES

T H R E AT E N E D L O S S O F L I C E N S E

“


P R E -A R R E S T

D I S C U S S I O N O F

V O L U N TA RYF S T S

OTHER FACTORS

R E F U S E D F S T S / S U B M I T S

T O I N T O X

E X P E R I E N C E W I T H L E G A L

S Y S T E M

D I D D R I V E R I N V O K E R I G H T T O AT T O R N E Y

D I D O F F I C E R A N S W E R

D R I V E R ’ S Q U E S T I O N S

C O N C E R N A B O U T

L E N G T H O F J A I L S TAY

R E Q U E S T A D V I S E F R O M O F F I C E R O R

S O M E O N E E L S E

C D L D R I V E RQ U E S T I O N S

A B O U T L I M I T E D P E R M I T

C O M M E N T S O N H O W

S U S P E N S I O N W I L L I M PA C T

D R I V E R


THE RELEVANT FACTORS OF THIS CASE ARE:


C A S E L A W T R I A L S E R I E S

WILLIAMS V. STATE

Special thanks to Bob Chestney

williams v. state: where do we go from here?

Law

s t e s t c

i e d c o n s e n t

s e r i e s williams

o o d t e s

s e wa s

t h e w

c h i n e o r

r c h u n d e r t h