Fazio v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Stephen Fazio’s convictions for driving under the influence and driving with an unlawful blood alcohol concentration. The court rejected his challenges to the implied-consent statute under the Fourth Amendment, the Georgia Constitution, and due process, relying largely on its contemporaneous decision in Olevik v. State. The court declined to review Fazio’s compelled-self-incrimination argument because it was not preserved below, while noting that the argument would have failed on the merits.

Holdings

1. The implied-consent statute is not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section I, Paragraph XIII of the Georgia Constitution because a breath test may be obtained without a warrant as a search incident to arrest.
2. The facial challenge fails because the statute does not create widespread confusion about drivers' rights or the consequences of refusing or taking and failing a chemical test, and the court cannot assume that the notice standing alone coerces reasonable people.
3. The court could not review Fazio's constitutional challenge because he did not raise it in the trial court and the trial court did not rule on it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Georgia's implied-consent notice statute violates the Fourth Amendment or the analogous provision of the Georgia Constitution because it authorizes or induces a warrantless breath test.
2. Whether the implied-consent notice statute is facially misleading and coercive in violation of due process.
3. Whether Fazio's compelled-self-incrimination challenge to the breath test could be reviewed when it was not raised in the trial court.

Disposition

affirmed