Drunk Driving Cases
Attorney William C. Head

Case 23
State v. C.M.
Gainesville Municipal Court
Gainesville, Georgia

The Defendant, C.M., met her supervisor and his wife at the Gainesville Holiday Inn at around 7:00 p.m..  Here they had two glasses of wine and then the supervisor took them to dinner at an Atlanta-area Longhorn Steak House.  Here, C.M. had a full steak dinner, potato, bread and salad for dinner as well as a 1-1/2 glasses of wine.  Late in the evening, she had one final after dinner cocktail with her supervisor and his wife.  She rode with her supervisor, the 30 miles back to her car at the Holiday Inn in Gainesville.

C.M. got her car at 12:45 a.m., and was pulled over seconds later by a female officer with the Gainesville police department.  A second car and its male officer quickly arrived at the scene.  The second (male) officer approached C.M.’s vehicle and explained to her that she had been pulled over by the female lieutenant for “weaving” and asked whether or not she had been drinking.  C.M. replied, “Yes, at dinner, but that’s all.”  Then the female lieutenant departed, leaving the patrol officer at the scene.  C.M. performed two requested field sobriety tests:  the walk and turn and the one leg stand.  The walk and turn test was requested despite the absence of a visible line to follow.  Moreover, no demonstration was given by the officer, as was required by field sobriety training.

Following the two tests, C.M. was placed under arrest for DUI and the officer began to handcuff her.  C.M. was indignant that she was being arrested.  She requested a phone call, but the officer refused.  The officer then began to read the implied consent warnings, but did so improperly, and asked C.M. if she would take a blood test.  Unsure of what she should do.  C.M. replied, “Not at this time” and again requested a phone call.  The officer again refused to let her make a phone call. The officer threatened her with loss of her license for one year if she refused.  She finally relented to the coercion and submitted to the test requested by the officer.

Next, the male officer took CM to the hospital for blood to be collected.  There, he asked her to sign a consent document.  In order to read the document she was asked to sign, she needed her glasses.  He would not retrieve her glasses, and once again refused her request.  He contended that it did not matter whether or not she signed the consent form because she had verbally consented at the arrest site.

C.M. was given the blood test, and then taken to jail.  She was given no “results” at that time, since the blood is only drawn at the hospital, not analyzed there.  The GBI does the analysis at a later date.

While in jail, the officers and attendant made it extremely difficult for C.M. to make any phone calls to get in touch with family and legal counsel.  There was no phone directory available to her and the phone was defective.  Numerous calls never went through.

After reviewing all facts of the case, a decision was made to go to trial.  The GBI blood test came back at 0.08%, and the legal limit at the time was 0.10%.  The prosecutor wanted to proceed with the case anyway, so a bench trial at Gainesville Municipal Court was chosen.

The original arresting officer testified that she had observed C.M. for approximately one mile after C.M. made a wide turn and changed lanes without using a signal.  However, the officer also testified that “no other driver’s safety was compromised by C.M.’s driving conduct that evening.” 

A recent case from the Georgia Court of Appeals was cited by Mr. Head as authority for the judge to acquit C.M. for this offense.  In addition, we proved at trial that C.M. was given an inaccurate and insufficient implied consent warning.  Our argument to the judge was that the method of advising C.M. of her rights was coercive and overbearing.  We also proved that the officer failed to conduct the field sobriety tests in the “standardized” and approved manner

We further proved that C.M., a woman in her 50’s, was dressed in a long skirt and was wearing dress “heels”, which made physical dexterity tests more difficult.

After all evidence was heard, the judge found C.M. not guilty of all charges.

You can read other cases by clicking below

Get a Free Evaluation of your drunk driving case Now