1LAW Logo

Checkpoint DUI-Drugs Arrest After Consenting to a Blood Draw

Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced Georgia attorney, with no obligation.

JV

Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*

Founding Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed January 1, 2026

Legal Inquiry

Consumer Legal Issue

I got arrested at a dui check point for dui-drugs there were no drugs in my possession at the time of checkpoint nor found in vehicle. I was asked to perform field sobriety then asked to provide a blood sample by the state police, in which I did.

I was wondering how to go about this case and if I was wrong for giving my blood, should I have refused any test?

Attorney Answer

Giving the blood sample was not "wrong," and saying yes did not hand the State your case — under Georgia law your agreement to the implied consent notice does not by itself establish valid consent, and the legality of the checkpoint is a separate question your lawyer can put to the court.

The governing law. O.C.G.A. § 40-5-55 establishes Georgia's implied consent: a person who operates a motor vehicle in this state "shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to Code Section 40-6-392, to a chemical test or tests of his or her blood, breath, urine, or other bodily substances" to determine the presence of alcohol or any other drug, following a DUI arrest. The charge itself comes from O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 — at (a)(2), driving under the influence of a drug to the extent it is less safe to drive, and at (a)(6), driving with any amount of marijuana or a controlled substance present in blood or urine. Which of those two you are charged under changes the case completely, because (a)(6) does not require proof that your driving was affected.

What the courts have held. In Kettle v. State, 339 Ga. App. 612, 794 S.E.2d 238 (2016), the Court of Appeals of Georgia addressed exactly your situation — a roadblock arrest and a blood test given after the implied consent notice. The court held that a driver's affirmative response to the notice does not by itself establish Fourth Amendment consent; the State must prove the consent was free and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, considering the driver's age, education and intelligence, the length of the detention, and any threats, intimidation or coercion. Separately, a challenge to the checkpoint itself asks whether the roadblock program had an appropriate primary purpose other than general crime control and whether the checkpoint was well identified. You should know the outcome: Kettle raised both challenges and lost both. The court found his consent voluntary and the roadblock valid, and affirmed the denial of suppression.

Bergstrom v. State, 347 Ga. App. 295, 819 S.E.2d 84 (2018) cuts the same direction. The Court of Appeals rejected both facial and as-applied constitutional attacks on Georgia's implied consent statute, holding the notice is not inherently coercive, imposes no criminal penalty for refusal, and need not comprehensively explain every consequence of refusing. That case involved a breath test rather than a blood draw, so it is background rather than a direct match — but it tells you the implied consent regime itself is not the vulnerable point.

So: these are real, live questions worth litigating, and they are also questions defendants frequently lose. Anyone who tells you the blood draw is automatically suppressible is selling something.

What you can do

1. Have counsel demand the roadblock documentation — the written authorization, who approved it, the stated purpose, the screening criteria and how the checkpoint was marked. Under Kettle those are the facts that decide the checkpoint challenge. 2. Get the video, and get the implied consent notice exactly as it was read to you, including when it was read relative to the arrest. 3. Get the blood lab report, the chain of custody, and confirm whether you are charged under (a)(2) or (a)(6). 4. Tell your lawyer soon, in conversation rather than on paper, how long you were held, what you were told, and what was said about what would happen if you refused. Those are the totality-of-the-circumstances facts in Kettle. 5. Locate the license notice you were given and check its date (see below). 6. Stop second-guessing the consent decision and start preserving evidence. What is done is done; the record of how it was done is what matters now.

⏱ Time limits apply. Your license case and your criminal case are two separate proceedings with different standards of proof, and they can come out differently on the same stop — winning one does not dispose of the other. The deadline to demand a hearing on the license action runs from the notice you were handed at arrest, not from your court date, and it is short enough that it commonly expires while a person is still waiting to be called into criminal court. Find that notice, read the date on it, and give it to counsel today.

Cases Cited

Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.

  • Kettle v. State, 339 Ga. App. 612, 794 S.E.2d 238 (2016) — Court of Appeals of Georgia
    On a motion to suppress arising from a roadblock DUI arrest, a driver's affirmative response to the implied consent notice does not by itself establish Fourth Amendment consent — the State must prove the consent to a blood test was free and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances (age, education, intelligence, length of detention, and any threats, intimidation, or coercion); and a constitutional challenge to the checkpoint itself asks whether the roadblock program had an appropriate primary purpose other than general crime control and whether the checkpoint was well identified under LaFontaine v. State. On these facts the court found voluntary consent and a valid roadblock and AFFIRMED the denial of suppression.
  • Bergstrom v. State, 347 Ga. App. 295, 819 S.E.2d 84 (2018) — Court of Appeals of Georgia
    The Court of Appeals REJECTED both facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to Georgia's implied consent statute, holding under Olevik v. State that the implied consent notice is not inherently coercive, that it imposes no criminal penalty for refusal, and that it need not comprehensively explain every consequence of refusing; the driver's consent to a state-administered breath test at a roadblock was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, and suppression was properly denied.

*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.

By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Courts & Legal Aid in Georgia

Frequently Asked Questions

Would refusing the blood test have been better?

Not necessarily, and it is not a defect in your case that you agreed. Kettle v. State makes clear that consenting after the notice does not automatically establish valid Fourth Amendment consent, so agreeing did not waive the argument. Refusal carries its own license consequences, which are generally harsher than those for taking and failing a test.

Can a checkpoint stop be challenged even though the officers had no reason to suspect me?

Yes — that is the point of a roadblock challenge. Under the framework applied in Kettle v. State, the questions are whether the roadblock program had an appropriate primary purpose other than general crime control and whether the checkpoint was well identified. Individualised suspicion is not required at a valid checkpoint, so the challenge targets the program, not your driving.

No drugs were found in my car. Does that help?

It removes a possession charge but it does not answer the DUI charge. O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(6) turns on any amount of marijuana or a controlled substance being present in your blood or urine, and (a)(2) turns on impairment, neither of which requires drugs to be in the vehicle. One qualifier belongs with (a)(6): it applies “subject to the provisions of subsection (b),” and subsection (b) provides that a person legally entitled to use a drug is not in violation unless “rendered incapable of driving safely.” If any substance found was one you hold a valid prescription for, say so to your lawyer, because it changes which subsection the State can prove. The blood result, not the search of your car, remains the center of this case.

Privacy Policy Terms of Use Your Privacy Choices