☢ test - Í

11. INDEPENDENT TEST, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION Brown v. State, 334 Ga.App. 509, 779 S.E.2d 723 (November 13, 2015). Interlocutory appeal in DUI prosecution. Trial court properly denied motion to suppress State’s implied consent breath test; no denial of right to independent test. Arrested in Lawrenceville, defendant agreed to take State breath test, then requested independent urine test at Northside Hospital in Forsyth County. “[Sergeant] Long believed that the location was too far away and that the request was unreasonable given all of the facilities that were ‘in the Gwinnett County area.’ But not wishing to make that decision alone, Long contacted the on-duty magistrate court judge and asked for the judge’s opinion on the matter.” The magistrate agreed with the officer that the location was too far away, given closer options. The officer similarly rejected defendant’s second request, Emory Johns Creek Hospital in Fulton County. “Brown … then requested to be taken to the Gwinnett Medical Center in Duluth (GMC–D).” The officer complied, and defendant was able to get an independent test there. Circumstances here supported trial court’s finding that the officer acted reasonably: “Long was willing to take Brown to facilities that were ‘in the Gwinnett County area’; Long was a supervisor and did not want to travel too far or take too much time away from those reporting to him; the requested facilities were further away than those in the Gwinnett County area; and Long obtained the opinion of a magistrate judge that a request to go to a facility outside of Gwinnett was unreasonable. In addition, Brown did not make arrangements with anyone at the facilities in Fulton and Forsyth to ensure that those facilities were able and willing to perform a test, and, ultimately, Long took Brown to a hospital that Brown selected.” Luckey v. State, 313 Ga.App. 502, 722 S.E.2d 114 (January 11, 2012). DUI and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress implied consent breath test results. Contrary to defendant’s argument, there was no failure to accommodate his request for independent testing. Although defendant expressed a desire to get an independent test, he never identified a facility where he wished to be taken. “[I]n Crawford v. City of Forest Park, 215 Ga.App. 234, 236, 450 S.E.2d 237 (1994), this Court held that although ‘the officer must not prevent a defendant from exercising his right to an independent test, it is not his duty to ensure the performance of such a test.... In this case, [the officer] made reasonable efforts to accommodate defendant's request for an independent test, but defendant changed his mind about having it. Accordingly, the test results were admissible, and the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress.’ See also Morgan v. State, 212 Ga.App. 394, 396–397, 442 S.E.2d 257 (1994) (‘It is the responsibility of the arrestee, not the officer, to designate the specifics of (any) independent testing and the officer must be apprised by the arrestee of those specifics before the officer has a duty to facilitate the arrestee's election’).” Officer here offered to take defendant for testing, but defendant demanded to be taken by someone else, and in any event never said where he wanted to go. “‘[B]efore the duty of the police arises to transport a defendant to the location of the independent test, and before there is a breach of that duty which may give reason to suppress the evidence of the state administered test, the defendant must first show that he had made arrangements with a qualified person of his own choosing, that the test would be made if he came to the hospital, that he so informed the personnel at the jail where he was under arrest, and that those holding him either refused or failed to take him to the hospital for that purpose,’ quoting Smith v. State, 277 Ga.App. 81, 83, 625 S.E.2d 497 (2005). State v. Davis, 309 Ga.App. 558, 711 S.E.2d 76 (May 12, 2011). Trial court properly suppressed “the evidence of a State- administered breath test on the basis that the State did not reasonably accommodate Davis's request for an independent test.” “Officer Johnson's unilateral determination that Davis would be unable to pay for the blood test, without confirming the hospitals' policies regarding payment and without offering to accommodate Davis in obtaining a method of payment, was insufficient” to constitute reasonable accommodation, quoting Anderson (October 22, 2002), below, and Butts v. City of Peachtree City, 205 Ga.App. 492, 494(2), 422 S.E.2d 909 (1992): ““[w]hen the officers learned that appellant did not have sufficient cash for a blood test at one of the recommended hospitals, appellant should have been offered the opportunity to use a telephone to make other arrangements.” Defendant’s decision not to pursue test when told she’d have to pay for it is immaterial. “As we have previously stated, ‘the police cannot escape the duty to reasonably accommodate individuals who have invoked the right to an additional test simply because such individuals fail to insist on alternatives, especially when they have not been instructed of their responsibility to make such arrangements and that failure to do so results in a waiver. It must be remembered that such individuals are in police custody and do not have free reign to dictate their own actions. Because of the very nature of the arrest, their faculties are often impaired, and their actions are largely dictated by the instructions given to them by the police.’ See Butts, 205 Ga.App. at 494(2), 422 S.E.2d 909.” Ritter v. State, 306 Ga.App. 689, 703 S.E.2d 8 (September 16, 2010). Defendant’s DUI conviction affirmed; no failure to reasonably accommodate defendant’s request for an independent blood test where “Ritter requested [at night] that the test be conducted at his doctor's office in Alpharetta on the following morning; that Alpharetta was 30 to 45 minutes away;