☢ test - Í

2002) (holding that trial court properly suppressed results of defendant’s breath test result where he blew once into Intox, refused to blow again, asked for and did not receive independent blood test). Joel v. State, 245 Ga.App. 750, 538 S.E.2d 847 (August 31, 2000). Interlocutory appeal; trial court erred in denying motion to suppress. “[T]he arresting officer was not justified in refusing to accommodate Joel’s request for an independent blood test” following State-administered test. Forsyth County deputy refused Joel’s request to take him to Northside Hospital, where his mother worked and where he trusted the staff. Deputy instead took defendant to North Fulton Hospital. Deputy said he didn’t want to go inside the perimeter, passing closer hospitals “in the immediate area.” Deputy also expressed concern about the safety of the area around Northside, acknowledging his unfamiliarity with the area. “As the officer admitted at the hearing, time was not an issue, since the requested hospital was no greater distance from the sheriff's office than some of the hospitals which the officer thought would have been reasonable choices, and because the officer was not in any particular hurry to finish processing the arrest. Likewise, the fact that the requested facility was outside Forsyth County did not make the request unreasonable, since the officer testified that other hospitals located outside the county, including the one to which the officer drove Joel, would have been reasonable choices. … The officer's sole basis for refusing to take Joel to a reasonably close facility of Joel's own choosing is that he was unfamiliar with the area in which the hospital is located and, therefore, the request caused him safety concerns. His safety concerns are not supported by any specific evidence. There is nothing suggesting that the officer could not have readily found out the location of the requested hospital and gotten there without getting lost or having an accident. An officer's unfamiliarity with the area is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to deny an accused's request for an independent test by personnel of his own choosing. As this Court stated in State v. Hughes, 181 Ga.App. 464, 467, 352 S.E.2d 643 (1987), the ‘ of his own choosing’ language in OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(3) is not superfluous, and the fact that the accused was given an additional test at a facility other than the one he selected does not demonstrate the state's compliance with the statute.” State v. Gillette, 236 Ga.App. 571, 512 S.E.2d 399 (February 19, 1999). In DUI prosecution, trial court erred by granting motion to suppress. At motion hearing, defense counsel asked officer if defendant asked for an additional test. Officer said he didn’t remember if defendant requested an additional test. Trial court held that this was sufficient to suppress test result because defendant had informed officer he wanted an additional test. Court of Appeals reversed trial court because defendant had not testified; therefore, there was no conflict in the evidence for the trial court to resolve. There was no evidence to establish the defense attorney’s version of the events. Officer’s inability to remember whether defendant asked for independent test did not render state-administered test inadmissible. Clegg v. State, 236 Ga.App. 115, 511 S.E.2d 544 (January 27, 1999). “Defendant was not denied due process under State or federal law based on the arresting officer’s refusal to allow him to have an independent blood test. Defendant forfeited his right to such independent testing by refusing the arresting officer’s request to submit to a state- administered breath test after being advised under OCGA § 40-5-67.1. Allen v. State, 229 Ga.App. 435, 438(2)(a), (b), 494 S.E.2d 229 (1997).” Accord , Renkiewicz v. State , 283 Ga.App. 692, 642 S.E.2d 384 (February 22, 2007). 12. INDEPENDENT TEST, REQUEST FOR, WHAT CONSTITUTES Farmer v. State, 335 Ga.App. 679, 782 S.E.2d 786 (February 11, 2016). Per se DUI conviction affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to suppress state breath test. Arresting trooper read implied consent notice and asked defendant for a breath test. “Farmer responded by saying that she would take a urine test. The trooper then explained that he was asking her to submit to a breath test and Farmer agreed to submit to the designated test. At that point, in order to make sure there was no confusion, the trooper asked Farmer if she was requesting an independent test. Farmer responded that the breath test was fine because she was ‘screwed either way.’ After making that comment, Farmer gave no further response. Farmer did not request an independent test at any time during the encounter.” Held, “Farmer never requested an independent test of her urine, blood, or breath. Moreover, when Farmer told the trooper that she would take a urine test, she was requesting that the trooper designate a urine test, rather than a breath test, as the State-administered chemical test.” Citing Anderton (February 7, 2007), below and England v. State , 302 Ga.App. 12, 689 S.E.2d 833 (December 2, 2009); distinguishing McGinn (July 9, 2004), below (“defendant expressly requested an independent blood test and re- initiated the discussion about the independent test while waiting to take the State-administered breath test”). State v. Thompson, 334 Ga.App. 692, 780 S.E.2d 67 (November 18, 2015). In DUI prosecution, trial court erred by granting plea in bar based on constitutional speedy trial violation without properly weighing the Barker factors. Contrary to trial court’s finding, defendant wasn’t entitled to demand, some 18 months after her arrest, an independent test of her blood sample taken to the GBI Crime Lab. Blood sample was destroyed after retention for one year, pursuant to standard