Facing a DUI charge in Cobb County can be daunting, but understanding recent legal precedents can empower your defense strategy. The case of Newman v. The State, A25A0603, Court of Appeals of Georgia ( May 22, 2025) offers critical insights into DUI arrests, implied consent laws, and evidence suppression. As an experienced Cobb County DUI lawyer, George Creal leverages such cases to protect clients’ rights. Here’s a summary of the case and its implications for your DUI defense.
Case Background: DUI Arrest in Kennesaw
On November 20, 2021, Kennesaw police responded to 911 calls about a black Ford truck impeding traffic on Kennesaw 75 Parkway. Officers found William Newman asleep at the wheel, with the vehicle running. After observing signs of intoxication—odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech—officers conducted field sobriety tests, including the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test. Newman’s blood test, taken after he consented under Georgia’s implied consent law, revealed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.156. Charged with DUI and related offenses, Newman moved to suppress the blood test evidence, challenging the stop, his consent, and the HGN test’s admissibility.
Court of Appeals Ruling: Key Takeaways
The Georgia Court of Appeals addressed several critical issues, affirming parts of the trial court’s decision while vacating others. Here’s what Cobb County residents need to know:
- Reasonable Suspicion for the Stop: The court upheld the officers’ right to detain Newman, as impeding traffic provided reasonable grounds for a traffic stop. Officers’ observations of Newman’s disorientation and intoxication signs justified further investigation, including ordering him out of the vehicle.
- Implied Consent and Blood Test Consent: Newman argued Georgia’s implied consent law was coercive and that he withdrew consent post-arrest. The court disagreed, finding his consent voluntary under the totality of circumstances. The implied consent notice was read verbatim, and no evidence showed intimidation or prolonged detention. Additionally, Newman’s attempt to withdraw consent 11 days later was deemed invalid, consistent with State v. Simmons, 279 Ga. App. 301, 605 SE2d 846 (2004). Attorney Counterpoint: However, State v. Simmons, deals with the ability of a Defendant withdrawing consent under the implied consent statute and not under the actual consent framework set out in Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817, 821 (771 SE2d 373) (2015) for Fourth Amendment consent. In terms of the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is well settled constitutional law that "[C]onsent which waives Fourth Amendment rights may be limited, qualified, or withdrawn." Manzanares v. Higdon, 575 F.3d 1135, 1143 (quoting Gates, 537 F.3d at 426) (alteration in original)); United States v. Sanders, 424 F.3d 768, 774 (8th Cir. 2005) ("Once given, consent to search may be withdrawn[.]"); United States v. McWeeney, 454 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2006) ("A suspect is free, ... after initially giving consent, to delimit or withdraw his or her consent at anytime."); United States v. Gray, 369 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir.2004) (finding that the defendant's expression of impatience with the length of an automobile search, unaccompanied by a specific request to leave, did not constitute a withdrawal of consent to search); State v. Modlin, 291 Neb. 660; 867 NW2d 609, 621 (2015)(once given, consent to search may be withdrawn). See generally, State v. Tye, 276 Ga 559, 580 SE2d 528, 530-531(2003).
- HGN Test Admissibility: The trial court erred by applying the outdated Harper standard instead of the Daubert standard for expert testimony, as required post-July 1, 2022. The Appeals Court vacated this portion of the ruling, remanding it for review under Daubert to assess the HGN test’s reliability and the officer’s qualifications.
- Constitutional Challenges: The trial court sidestepped Newman’s constitutional arguments about implied consent laws by stating that because Newman consented the trial court did not need to address the Constitutional issues. Thus, these issues weren’t addressed on appeal by the Court of Appeals because Newman did not obtain a ruling on his constitutional issues in the trial court. Attorney Counterpoint: Ignoring, Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (consent given after a false claim of lawful authority (such as saying there’s a warrant when there isn’t one or by analogy a false statement that a blood refusal is admissible against you at trial ) is not valid consent. Saying consent negates a Consitutional challenge at the trial court level is an easy out for Constitutional challenges.
Why This Matters for Your DUI Defense in Cobb County
The Newman case underscores several defense strategies a skilled Cobb County DUI attorney like George Creal can employ:
- Challenging the Stop: If officers lacked reasonable suspicion or prolonged the stop unlawfully, evidence like field sobriety or blood test results may be suppressed.
- Scrutinizing Consent: Consent to blood tests must be voluntary. Coercion or misleading information could invalidate test results. Consent to a warrantless Fourth Amendment consent contrasted with Implied Consent clearly can be withdrawn.
- Questioning Field Sobriety Tests: The shift to the Daubert standard for HGN tests means officers must meet stricter criteria for admissibility, offering opportunities to challenge their qualifications or test administration.
- Exploring Constitutional Defenses: While not ruled on here, implied consent laws remain a potential avenue for constitutional challenges in future cases.
Trust George Creal for Your DUI Defense
With over 31 years of experience, George Creal, Attorney at Law, is a trusted Cobb County DUI lawyer who stays abreast of evolving case law like Newman v. The State. Whether you’re facing charges for DUI-less safe, DUI per se, or related traffic offenses, George Creal meticulously analyzes police conduct, evidence admissibility, and constitutional issues to build a robust defense. His proven track record includes suppressing evidence and securing favorable outcomes for clients in Kennesaw, Marietta, and beyond.
Contact George Creal Today
If you’ve been charged with a DUI in Cobb County, don’t navigate the legal system alone. Contact George Creal at (404) 333-0706 or visit www.georgecreal.com for a free consultation. Let an experienced DUI attorney in Cobb County protect your rights and fight for the best possible outcome.