The Georgia Supreme Court issued an important decision on March 13, 2025 in Dias v. State, a case involving the admissibility of a DUI suspect’s refusal to submit to a blood test. This ruling, penned by Justice Ellington with a concurring opinion by Presiding Justice Peterson, addresses critical constitutional and evidentiary issues that could impact DUI prosecutions across Georgia. As an experienced Atlanta DUI lawyer, I’ll break down the key points of this opinion and explain what it means for individuals facing DUI charges.
Case Background
Christine Dias was arrested in Fulton County on April 10, 2020, for driving under the influence of
The State Court of Fulton County granted Dias’s motion, ruling that OCGA § 40-6-392(d) was unconstitutional as applied to her and that her refusal was inadmissible. The State appealed, and the case ultimately reached the Georgia Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals transferred it due to the novel constitutional question involved.
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court based its decision on prior Georgia Supreme Court precedents, notably Olevik v. State (2017) and Williams v. State (2015), which established that:
- A blood test is a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant unless there is consent or exigent circumstances.
- Georgians have a constitutional right to refuse warrantless blood tests absent an exception to the warrant requirement.
The trial court also cited Elliott v. State (2019), which held that under Article I, Section I, Paragraph XVI of the Georgia Constitution (prohibiting compelled self-incrimination), evidence of a DUI suspect’s refusal to submit to a breath test is inadmissible. Extending this logic, the trial court concluded that Dias’s refusal to submit to a blood test was an exercise of her constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches), the Fifth Amendment (due process and self-incrimination), and Paragraph XVI, and thus could not be used against her at trial.
The Georgia Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case for further consideration, finding that the trial court misapplied precedent and failed to address the novel constitutional question raised by Dias. Here are the key points from the majority opinion:
-
Misapplication of Elliott:
- The Supreme Court clarified that Elliott applies only to breath tests, not blood tests. In Elliott, the Court held that Paragraph XVI prohibits the admission of breath test refusal evidence because providing a breath sample requires an affirmative act that is self-incriminating. However, this ruling does not extend to blood tests, as drawing blood does not involve the same type of compelled act.
- The Court emphasized that it has never held that blood test refusals are inadmissible under Paragraph XVI or the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause. Prior cases, such as Strong v. State (1973), have upheld the admissibility of blood test results, finding that blood draws do not implicate self-incrimination rights.
-
Unresolved Constitutional Questions:
- Dias argued that using her blood test refusal against her violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches, her Fifth Amendment due process rights, and Paragraph XVI. However, the trial court did not directly rule on these broader constitutional claims, relying instead on Elliott’s self-incrimination holding, which was inapplicable.
- The Supreme Court noted that these questions—whether blood test refusal evidence is inadmissible on Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment due process, or other state constitutional grounds—remain open and unresolved. The Court declined to rule on them, leaving them for the trial court to address on remand.
-
Vacatur and Remand:
- The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to consider any other grounds for excluding the refusal evidence that Dias raised below, beyond the self-incrimination issue addressed in Elliott.
Concurring Opinion: A Deeper Dive into Rule 403
Presiding Justice Peterson, joined by Justices Bethel, McMillian, and Pinson, wrote a concurring opinion that provides additional insight into a potential non-constitutional basis for excluding blood test refusal evidence: Georgia Evidence Code Rule 403. Key points include:
- Rule 403 Overview: Under OCGA § 24-4-403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Peterson suggests that blood test refusal evidence might fall into this category.
- Probative Value vs. Prejudice:
- The State argues that refusal evidence is relevant to show “consciousness of guilt”—i.e., that a defendant refused a test because they believed it would reveal incriminating evidence. While this may have some probative value, Peterson argues it is often minimal (“barely nonzero”).
- Conversely, the risk of unfair prejudice is significant. Jurors might interpret a refusal as an admission of guilt, even though there are many innocent reasons to refuse a warrantless blood test, such as fear of needles, distrust of law enforcement, or a principled stand on constitutional rights.
- Alternative Grounds: Peterson emphasizes that Georgia courts should resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds (like Rule 403) before addressing constitutional challenges. He suggests that the trial court should evaluate Rule 403 on remand, potentially avoiding the need to rule on the constitutional issues altogether.
Implications for DUI Defense in Georgia
The Dias v. State decision has significant implications for DUI cases in Georgia, particularly regarding the admissibility of blood test refusal evidence:
- Narrow Scope of Elliott:
- DUI defendants cannot rely solely on Elliott to suppress blood test refusal evidence. The Supreme Court has made clear that Elliott applies only to breath tests, not blood tests, under the self-incrimination clause of the Georgia Constitution.
- Open Constitutional Questions:
- The constitutionality of admitting blood test refusal evidence under the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment due process clause, or other provisions of the Georgia Constitution remains unresolved. This leaves room for defense attorneys to argue these points in future cases, potentially leading to further clarification from the Supreme Court.
- Rule 403 as a Defense Tool:
- Justice Peterson’s concurrence highlights Rule 403 as a powerful tool for DUI defense. Even if refusal evidence is admissible under constitutional standards, it may still be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice. This provides an alternative, non-constitutional basis for suppression that defense attorneys should explore.
- Strategic Considerations:
- For DUI suspects, refusing a blood test remains a constitutional right absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. However, the State may attempt to use that refusal against you at trial. Working with an experienced DUI attorney is crucial to challenge the admissibility of such evidence on both constitutional and evidentiary grounds.
Why This Matters for Atlanta DUI Defendants
The Dias case underscores the complexity of DUI law in Georgia and the importance of skilled legal representation. At the Law Offices of George C. Creal, Jr., we closely monitor developments like this to ensure our clients receive the strongest possible defense. Whether it’s challenging the constitutionality of refusal evidence, leveraging Rule 403, or identifying procedural errors, we are committed to protecting your rights and achieving the best possible outcome.
Contact George C. Creal, Jr. for Expert DUI Defense
If you’ve been charged with a DUI in Atlanta or elsewhere in Georgia, don’t face the legal system alone. With over 25 years of experience defending DUI cases, I have the knowledge and expertise to navigate complex issues like those raised in Dias v. State. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your case and learn how we can help.
George C. Creal, Jr. is a trial lawyer specializing in DUI and criminal defense in Georgia. This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Disclaimer
The information in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult with an attorney to discuss your specific legal situation.