On September 26, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeal found that you do not have a right to translation of Implied Consent into the language you can understand. Lee v. State, A13A1067 (Sept. 26, 2013). Seung Lee appealed her conviction of DUI less safe after a bench trial arguing that he did not understand the Georgia Implied Consent Rights read to him and to which he did not expressly agree to test before he was directed to submit to a state-administered chemical test of his breath on the Intoxilyzer 5000 at the Gwinnett County Jail. The Lawrenceville Trial Court found that Georgia Law does not require that a Georgia DUI Defendant understand his Implied Consent rights just that they are read to him.
The Court of Appeals agreed that there is no legal right to understanding Georgia Implied Consent Rights as Implied Consent is a matter of “grace” from the Georgia Legislature and implied consent is not required by Constitutional Due Process citing Furcal v. State, 255 GA. App. 729(2002). The Court of Appeals rejected the Equal Protection argument raised by Lee because it was not raised in the trial court. Update your particularized motions in limine at the trial court level! Finally, you got to wonder why Lee was either not convicted of a DUI per se or a breath test DUI but just a less safe DUI? Strange as it may seem you are not allowed to understand.
-Author: George Creal