Language Barrier Actual Consent Standard

After suppression of the transporting breath test results. Defendant to the The appellate police precinct, the court determined officer again read the that the trial court implied consent used an incorrect warning and a second standard. Under officer presented the Williams, the proper test to him. standard in Defendant nodded determining whether LANGUAGE speaking English, but and gave two breath a defendant BARRIER – he had an accent, as samples while still understood the ACTUAL CONSENT if his native language handcuffed. The implied consent was Spanish.” At the second officer did not notice and the STANDARD officer’s request, recall the implied consequences for Defendant Defendant performed consent warning refusal to take the was charged with DUI field sobriety tests being read at the designated test is less safe, DUI and communicated in precinct but said that whether the unlawful alcohol English regarding the Defendant “stood up defendant acted concentration, and tests. under his own power “freely and following too closely The officer and walked over.” voluntarily” in giving after he was involved arrested Defendant The trial court “actual consent.” in an accident with based upon the field suppressed the Knowing consent is another vehicle. sobriety evaluations, intoxilyzer test results not required. In Defendant sought to unsteadiness on his and held that under making a have the intoxilyzer feet, smell of alcohol Williams v. State, determination, the results suppressed. and positive alco- Defendant did not court should consider The officer sensor reading. After give actual, knowing, the “totality of the who responded to the officer read the and voluntary circumstances.” The the accident smelled implied consent consent to the case was remanded alcohol on warning in English administration of the to the trial court to Defendant’s breath and requested a state’s breath test. consider the motion and Defendant said breath test, According to the trial to suppress under the that he had been Defendant court, Defendant’s proper standard. drinking but had responded, “No conduct did not State v. Flores- stopped drinking an English.” This establish that he Gallegos, 2016 WL hour and a half prior response was the first sufficiently 2726842 (Ga. App.) to the accident. The time during the understood English “ officer observed that FREELY AND officer’s 30-40 minute and the state only VOLUNTARILY” Defendant “had an encounter with showed that STANDARD FOR accent. His speech Defendant that Defendant was slow, a little Defendant indicated acquiesced to the CONSENT TO thick, like he had a trouble officers’ claims of TESTING hard time getting understanding the lawful authority. The A GSP trooper words out….He was officer. state appealed the stopped Defendant for speeding and purpose of the test consented to a search Defendant’s suitcase, suspected that was to determine the of their luggage. The which the trooper Defendant had been presence of alcohol in trooper noticed an then searched. The driving under the Defendant’s blood. oversized metal can suitcase contained influence. After The video of the stop of food inside two large metal cans conducting several and administration of Defendant’s suitcase, labeled as containing field sobriety tests, the field sobriety but he did not check whole jalapeno he arrested tests show that the contents, peppers and whole Defendant, read her Defendant “clearly although he serrano peppers. The the implied consent understood the remembered reading trooper recalled that notice and situation and that heroin had been Defendant had a transported her to articulately pleaded concealed inside large metal can in his the fire department with the officer not to canned goods that belongings two weeks to have a blood test. arrest her. The video appeared to be earlier. The trooper Defendant signed a also fails to show any factory sealed. The shook the cans and form which read, “I coercive trooper released the heard liquid sloshing hereby consent to circumstances that occupants of the bus. but did not hear food allow SSFD/EMS, would undercut the Twelve days “flopping.” The acting at the request voluntariness” of her later, the trooper trooper asked for of the Officer consent. Considering encountered another permission to unseal identified below and the totality of the El Expreso bus at a TA the cans, but as an agent of a circumstances, the Travel Center. The Defendant refused. licensed law court found that bus was traveling The trooper opened enforcement agency, Defendant’s consent from Texas to Florida one can and saw a to draw a blood was free and and Defendant was large black cylinder sample for the voluntary and again a passenger. floating in liquid and purpose of reversed the trial Around 8:38 a.m., the believed the cylinder determining the court’s suppression of bus driver permitted contained presence of alcohol the blood test results. a police canine and contraband. At 9:41 or any other drug.” State v. Reid, 2016 his handler to walk a.m., the trooper The trooper signed WL 1602789 (Ga. around the exterior arrested Defendant the form below App.) of the bus. The and released the Defendant’s WARRANTLESS canine indicated that remaining signature, stating that SEARCH: METAL he detected drugs on passengers. his request for a CAN WITHIN the bus and the Two troopers blood draw was driver and all took Defendant and pursuant to Georgia’s SUITCASE ON A passengers gave the metal cans to a implied consent law. PASSENGER BUS consent to unload the DEA office. Around Defendant A FHP trooper luggage from the noon, a federal agent agreed to submit to observed an El undercarriage of the opened the sealed the requested test Expreso bus that was bus to allow the can, removed a and also executed a traveling from Texas canine to smell each cylinder and tested written consent to Florida at a TA suitcase. samples of the which specifically Travel Center. The The canine substances inside stated that the passengers alerted on both cylinders, which were positive for the opening of the can presence of cocaine. found inside Defendant Defendant’s suitcase. argued that the U.S. v. Pina, 2016 WL cocaine should be 1612801 (11th suppressed because Circuit). the troopers lacked probable cause to If you have an search the bus and ALS Hearing claimed that the scheduled and you troopers were will be in training, on required to obtain a vacation, or warrant to search his otherwise unavailable suitcase when he and for the ALS Hearing, a his property were written motion for “literally in police continuance must be custody” and he had filed as soon as no mobility and no possible with the chance to flee. OSAH Judge but no The court less than found that the approximately seven trooper did not to ten days prior to violate Defendant’s the scheduled ALS Fourth Amendment Hearing. rights. The “inherent On Intoxilyzer mobility of the bus cases, please and the probable remember to bring to cause created by the the ALS Hearing the positive responses of ORIGINAL test results the police canine” and a COPY of your were sufficient to permit to operate the justify the Intoxilyzer. warrantless search of the suitcase and the