☢ test - Í

warning does not specify “to the accused any requirements for requesting that test – linguistically, temporally, or otherwise… [a]n accused’s right to have an additional, independent chemical test or tests administered is invoked by some statement that reasonably could be construed, in light of the circumstances, to be an expression of a desire for such test.” See also Johnson, above; Distinguished in State v. Gillaspy , 270 Ga.App. 111, 605 S.E.2d 835 (October 19, 2004) (Statement “I’ll take a blood test,” was clearly, in context, a response to officer’s request for a state- administered test, not a request for an independent test); Anderton v. State , 283 Ga.App. 493, 642 S.E.2d 137 (February 7, 2007) (same as Gillaspy ); Collins v. State , 290 Ga.App. 418, 659 S.E.2d 818 (March 21, 2008) (designation of blood test by defendant, where trooper allowed defendant to choose the type of state test, was not a request for an independent test); England v. State , 302 Ga.App. 12, 689 S.E.2d 833 (December 2, 2009) (similar to Collins ). State v. Braunecker, 255 Ga.App. 685, 566 S.E.2d 409 (June 7, 2002). Thirty minutes after taking the state test, defendant asked the jailor taking his booking picture when it would be appropriate for him to ask for an independent test. The jailor replied that he should have asked the arresting officer, and now that he was gone it was too late. Held, the jailor’s failure to accommodate defendant’s request denied defendant’s right to an independent test. Trial court properly suppressed the results of the state test. Brown v. State, 253 Ga.App. 741, 560 S.E.2d 316 (February 14, 2002). Defendant pulled over for DUI was advised by arresting officer of his right to independent test and was told by the officer that he would be driven to any local testing facility for that purpose. Defendant chose to have his blood drawn at a hospital in a neighboring county and the officer agreed to take defendant. When asked about his ability to pay for the test, defendant stated his only means was a personal check. The officer had the dispatcher contact the hospital and the hospital responded that it did not accept checks. Defendant did not request to be taken anywhere else, nor did he request the opportunity to make financial arrangements. Held, the officer made reasonable efforts to accommodate defendant’s request for an independent test and defendant’s failure to obtain the test was based on his inability to pay for it. Hendrix v. State, 254 Ga.App. 807, 564 S.E.2d 1 (December 10, 2001). Defendant was arrested for DUI in Carrollton, read implied consent, and after submitting to breath test, asked to be taken to Newnan Hospital, 25-30 miles away, for an independent blood test. Officer responded negatively, but stated he would take defendant to the local hospital or any other local facility. Defendant declined and officer was informed by his sergeant that defendant was not to be taken to Newnan Hospital. Defendant never obtained an independent test. At suppression hearing, defendant argued his request for independent test was not accommodated. Although the mere fact that a requested facility is in another jurisdiction does not justify an officer’s refusal to accommodate a defendant, there is evidence to support the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress given that significant time and distance (two factors a trial court may consider under State v. Buffington , 189 Ga.App. 800, 377 S.E.2d 548 (1989)) would have been involved in driving defendant to Newnan. Avant v. State, 251 Ga.App. 165, 554 S.E.2d 194 (August 9, 2001). Defendant asked for independent blood test. Officer informed defendant he would have to pay for the test at whatever facility he chose and called the local hospital for defendant to attempt to arrange a blood test. Held, arresting officer made a reasonable effort to accommodate defendant’s request; fact that the officer told defendant he would have to pay for the test and fact that defendant was ultimately unable to pay for the testing does not constitute a denial of defendant’s right to obtain the test. Smith v. State, 250 Ga.App. 583, 552 S.E.2d 528 (July 16, 2001). An officer’s affirmative duty to accommodate a request for an independent blood test is not met merely because the defendant is ultimately released on bond and then gets a test on his own before 3 hours have passed since the defendant last drove. Chamberlain v. State, 246 Ga.App. 423, 541 S.E.2d 64 (October 17, 2000). After doing field sobriety tests, the officer determined that the defendant’s performance was consistent with that of someone under the influence of alcohol, and arrested her. He read her the implied consent notice and took her to jail for further testing. The officer told the defendant that she was to provide two breath samples that would comprise one test. She provided the first sample, the second time she did not blow hard enough to produce a sufficient sample. At this time she requested a blood test. The officers denied her request stating that she could not have a blood test until she provided the second breath sample. Held, after providing a breath sample sufficient to cause the breath testing instrument to produce a printed alcohol concentration analysis on the state administered test, the defendant was entitled to the blood test that she requested. The unjustified failure to provide this test is a violation of the statute and precludes the state from using evidence regarding the state administered test. See also State v. Schmidt , 256 Ga.App. 749, 569 S.E.2d 630 (July 26,