Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Adams v. Hardison

Adams v. Hardison

264 S.E.2d 693, 153 Ga. App. 152, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1717
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 23, 1980
Docket59041
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 264 S.E.2d 693 (Adams v. Hardison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. Hardison, 264 S.E.2d 693, 153 Ga. App. 152, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1717 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Shulman, Judge.

Defendant appeals the revocation of his driver’s license for. refusing to submit to a blood-alcohol test, contending that at the time of his arrest he was not properly advised of his right to have an additional chemical test performed in accordance with Code Ann. § 68A-902.1. The language of the Code section mandates that we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Code Ann. § 68A-902.1 (a) (4) reads in pertinent part as follows: "The arresting officer at the time of arrest shall advise the person arrested of his right to a chemical test or *153 tests . . (Emphasis supplied.)

Argued January 7, 1980 Decided January 23, 1980. Robert P. Killian, for appellant. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Nicholas G. Dumich, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

There is no evidence in the case at bar to show that appellant was advised of his right at the time of his arrest. That being true, appellant’s refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol test was justified and does not present grounds for the revocation of his license under the implied consent law. Code Ann. § 68B-306. See Hulsey v. State, 138 Ga. App. 221 (225 SE2d 752); Garrett v. Dept. of Public Safety, 237 Ga. 413 (2) (228 SE2d 812), which states on p. 415:" 'The arresting officer at the time of the arrest shall advise the person arrested of his rights . . .’ (Emphasis supplied.) This cannot be interpreted to mean sometime in the future.”

We are fully aware of the decisions embracing substantial compliance with certain notice requirements, but here the legislature and the Supreme Court have clearly spoken.

Judgment reversed.

Quillian, P. J, and Corley, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McKinnon v. State
709 S.W.2d 805 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
State v. Buice
338 S.E.2d 293 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)
Connole v. Muzio
478 A.2d 274 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1984)
State ex rel. W. Va. Dept. of Motor Vehicles v. Hillyard
309 S.E.2d 105 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1983)
Perano v. State
300 S.E.2d 668 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1983)
State v. Johnston
286 S.E.2d 47 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 S.E.2d 693, 153 Ga. App. 152, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-hardison-gactapp-1980.