Legal Opinion

State v. Flores-Gallegos

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 11, 2016No. A16A0339PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Boggs, Judge.

The State of Georgia appeals from the trial court’s order suppressing Mario Flores-Gallegos’ Intoxilyzer test results. The court concluded that Flores-Gallegos “did not give actual, knowing and voluntary consent to the administration of the State’s breath test.” For the following reasons, we remand this case for the trial court to consider the motion to suppress under the proper standard.

When reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, this court applies the following principles:

First, when a motion to suppress is heard by the trial judge, that judge sits as the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2015
  3. Kendrick v. the StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2016
  4. State v. JourdanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2003
  5. State v. AustinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2011

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. The State v. BroganCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2017
  2. Kristin Ward v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API