On March 4, 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court handed down its decision in Anyane v. State, a DUI appeal that tested the constitutionality of Georgia’s implied consent law. For drivers facing DUI charges, this ruling clarifies the legal landscape—and highlights why expert defense is critical. Let’s break down what happened, what the Court said, and what it means for you.

The Case: A Routine Stop Turns Constitutional Showdown

Evelyn-Natasha La Anyane was pulled over for failing to maintain her lane and misusing her high beams. Officers quickly suspected DUI—her eyes were red and glassy, her breath smelled of alcohol, and her speech was slurred. Field sobriety tests (horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand) and a preliminary breath test confirmed their suspicions. After her arrest, police read her Georgia’s implied consent warning, which states that by driving, you’ve impliedly "consented" to chemical tests (blood, breath, or urine) if suspected of DUI, and refusal can suspend your license and be used against you at trial. La Anyane agreed to a blood test, which showed a 0.117 BAC—well over the 0.08 legal limit. She was convicted of DUI less safe, a charge that doesn’t require a specific BAC but proves alcohol made her a less safe driver.

On appeal, La Anyane launched a bold attack. She argued Georgia’s entire implied consent scheme violates the Fourth Amendment by coercing drivers into warrantless blood tests through a misleading warning. She claimed the warning falsely implies consent is mandatory and that blood and urine refusal evidence is always admissible, rendering her consent involuntary. She also challenged two trial rulings: barring her from using a NHTSA 1977 field sobriety study to cross-examine a DUI Field Sobriety expert and admitting her BAC despite the "less safe" charge.

The Court’s Analysis: Implied Consent Stands Firm

Justice Pinson, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected La Anyane’s arguments. Here’s the deeper analysis:

     1. Consent Wasn’t Coerced: The Fourth Amendment allows searches with voluntary consent—no warrant needed. La Anyane said the implied consent warning coerced her by suggesting she was "required" to comply. The Court disagreed, pointing to prior precedent Olevik v. State, 302 GA. 228, 806 SE2d 505, (2017). The warning mentions refusal three times—e.g., "If you refuse this testing, your...license will be suspended;"a refusal of blood and urine can be used against you at trial—and ends with a choice: "Will you submit?" It’s not a demand; it’s an ask with consequences. Unlike cases like Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 450-451 (II) (A) & 477 (VI) (136 SCt 2160, 195 LE2d 560) (2016), where refusal was a crime, Georgia only imposes civil penalties (license suspension), which the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld. La Anyane’s consent, the Court found, was voluntary under the "totality of the circumstances"—she even asked what the test was for, showing awareness, not coercion.

     2. Refusal Evidence Isn’t "False": La Anyane argued the warning’s claim that refusal "may be offered into evidence" is a lie, citing constitutional protections. The Court deftly sidestepped a definitive ruling on the "thorny and unresolved" issue of refusal evidence for blood tests (unlike breath tests, ruled inadmissible under Georgia’s Constitution in Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 (824 SE2d 265) (2019). Since La Anyane consented—no refusal evidence was used—the warning wasn’t "false" in her case. The law (OCGA § 40-6-392(d)) still allows refusal evidence, and no binding precedent has struck it down for blood tests. Her argument fizzled.

     3. No Standing for a Facial Challenge: La Anyane wanted the whole implied consent law declared unconstitutional for all drivers. The Court said no—since her consent was valid, she can’t claim it harms others hypothetically. This "as-applied" win for the state shut down her broader attack.

     4. Evidentiary Rulings Upheld: The trial court’s discretion held. La Anyane couldn’t use the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) 1977 laboratory study upon which all Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are validated without proving its reliability (a "learned treatise" exception requires evidence, which she didn’t provide). Apparently, NHTSA is not very learned. And her BAC? Even though there are statutory presumption of impairment for under 0.05 (presumption of sobriety); 0.05-0.08 (no inference of impairment). OCGA 40-6-392(c). Relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. DUI less safe needs proof of impairment—her 0.117 BAC made that "more probable," and comparing it to the 0.08 limit gave jurors context, not confusion. Even though alcohol affects different people differently and there are no peer reviewed double blind placebo controlled studies with significant n values saying so. In fact, just the opposite. Martin, N. G., Perl, J., Oakeshott, J. G., Gibson, J. B., Starmer, G. A., & Wilks, A. V. (1985). A twin study of ethanol metabolism. Behavior Genetics, 15(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01071934; Mumenthaler, M. S., Taylor, J. L., O’Hara, R., & Yesavage, J. A. (1999). Gender differences in moderate drinking effects. Alcohol Research & Health, 23(1), 55–64. Devoulyte, K., Stewart, S. H., & Theakston, J. A. (2006). Type of alcoholic beverage and drinking outcome expectancies among young adult women: A preliminary study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 67(4), 628–632.

La Anyane v. State,  S24A1112. Supreme Court of Georgia (March 4, 2025)

What It Means for Georgia Drivers

This ruling maintains Georgia’s implied consent framework. If you’re stopped for DUI, the warning is a constitutional trap—it’s a hobson's choice with stakes. Consent to a test, and the results can convict you (even in "less safe" cases). Refuse, and you risk suspension and potential trial evidence (though refusal rules remain murky for blood tests). The Court’s focus on voluntary consent also signals that coercion claims need hard proof—vague discomfort won’t cut it.

For anyone facing DUI charges, Anyane underscores the complexity of these cases. Challenging a blood test or field sobriety evidence requires dissecting statutory language, constitutional nuances, and trial tactics—terrain where an experienced attorney thrives. At George Creal, Attorney at Law, we’ve handled countless DUI defenses, from suppression motions to trial wins. Facing a DUI in Georgia? Call us—your rights deserve a fighter.