Archive for category: Blog

A recent decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals underscores a critical point in DUI cases: the State must justify every stage of a police encounter, including the very first detention. In McDavid v. The State, decided July 2, 2026, the Court reversed DUI convictions arising from a single-car accident because the State never produced the officers who first restricted the driver’s freedom to leave the scene.

The facts were straightforward. On the night of July 21, 2023, John McDavid’s vehicle left the roadway and became stuck in a median in Alpharetta. Two Alpharetta officers arrived first and spoke with him at the driver’s window. A short time later, Sergeant Dustin Bak of the DUI enforcement unit arrived, took over the investigation, observed clear signs of impairment, conducted field evaluations, arrested McDavid, and obtained a breath test on the Intoxilyzer 9000. McDavid was charged with DUI per se, DUI less safe, and failure to maintain lane. He moved to suppress, arguing that the original two officers had unlawfully detained him by refusing to let him leave on foot or call a ride and by ordering him to remain on scene and return to his vehicle. The trial court denied the motion, finding the initial contact was a first-tier encounter that required no suspicion and that Sergeant Bak’s subsequent investigation was properly supported. After a stipulated bench trial, McDavid was convicted.

The Court of Appeals reversed. The majority held that the State failed to meet its burden under OCGA § 17-5-30 to prove the detention was lawful. McDavid had specifically alleged that the first officers prevented him from leaving. A citizen’s ability to walk away is the defining feature of a first-tier, consensual encounter. Once officers use a show of authority that would make a reasonable person believe he is not free to leave, the encounter becomes a second-tier detention that requires reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Because the State called only Sergeant Bak, who arrived later and could not describe what the first officers said or observed, the trial court had no evidence from which it could determine whether the initial detention was justified. Bak’s later observations of intoxication could not retroactively supply the missing justification for the earlier restraint. The Court also noted that a single-vehicle accident that causes no injury to another person or property does not independently require a driver to remain under Georgia’s hit-and-run statutes.

The practical lesson is clear. Even when a driver is involved in a crash and later shows signs of impairment, the State still must account for the actions of the first officers who restricted that driver’s movement. If those officers ordered the person to stay and the State cannot produce them at a suppression hearing, the entire investigation that followed may be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful detention. This is not a technicality. It is a direct application of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that seizures be justified at their inception.

For anyone facing DUI charges after a traffic stop or accident investigation, the details of the initial contact matter. Who arrived first? What was said? Was the driver free to leave? Those questions can determine whether the evidence the State intends to use at trial is admissible at all. The McDavid decision is a reminder that the burden remains on the State to answer them with competent evidence.

If you or someone you know has been arrested for DUI in the Atlanta area, the specific facts of the stop and the sequence of officers involved can make a significant difference in the outcome. Our office reviews these issues carefully in every case.  We are available to discuss your DUI case in a free confidential consultation.

In Georgia, repeat offenders are punished more severely, regardless of the nature of the crime charged. The theory behind it is to ensure that the prosecution deters people from continuing to commit crimes, which has caused the Georgia legislature to implement the Recidivist statute.

RECIDIVIST PROVISION

The Recidivist statute is set out in O.C.G.A. § 17-10-7(a). It states that if a criminal defendant has one prior felony conviction, and he/she is subsequently convicted of a second felony, the judge must sentence the offender to the maximum term of imprisonment as set out in the statute. However, the judge does have the discretion to allow probation if he/she wishes to do so, but that choice is completely up to the presiding judge.

Furthermore, if a criminal defendant has one prior “serious violent felony” conviction, the second conviction of similar violent nature would require the judge to sentence the accused to life in prison without parole, and the judge has no discretion, and cannot probate or suspend the sentence. The offender must serve the maximum sentence while in custody.

THREE STRIKES RULE

There is also a second provision of the Recidivist statute that comes into play with repeat offenders. It is known as the Three Strikes rule, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-10-7(c). This law states that if a criminal defendant has previously been convicted of three felonies, and he/she is convicted of a subsequent felony offense, which would be a fourth felony conviction, then the offender must serve the maximum term of imprisonment for that charge and will not be eligible for parole until that time has been served.

CONTACT US

At the Law Offices of W. Scott Smith, our attorneys are knowledgeable about the consequences of a felony conviction, especially for individuals who have been convicted of felony crimes in the past. We also understand all possible options for our clients dealing with pending allegations and will zealously advocate on their behalf. Therefore, if you have been recently arrested for a felony offense or your case is currently pending, please call our office today at 404-581-0999 for a free consultation.

For most people navigating the criminal justice system, walking out of the courtroom with a sentence of probation instead of jail time feels like a massive victory. It represents a hard-fought second chance—an opportunity to keep your job, stay home with your family, and handle your legal obligations in the real world. But as anyone on probation will tell you, that freedom is highly conditional, and it can feel like you are constantly walking a tightrope. If your probation officer or a prosecutor alleges that you slipped up, the state can move to revoke your probation, and suddenly you are facing the immediate threat of being sent right back behind bars.

When you are hit with a probation violation, it is incredibly important to realize that the rules of the game change entirely. A revocation proceeding is not a brand-new criminal trial, and you do not get the same extensive constitutional safety nets that you had the first time around. In a standard trial, the prosecution has to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard in our legal system. In a probation hearing, however, that shield is stripped away. The state only has to prove that you violated your terms by a preponderance of the evidence. In plain terms, that just means they have to convince a single judge that it is more likely than not—a simple fifty-one percent chance—that you broke a rule.

These violations generally fall into two categories, and judges view them through very different lenses. The first are technical violations, which are administrative or financial missteps. This includes things like missing a check-in appointment, failing a random drug screen, falling behind on your court fines, or failing to complete your community service hours on time. The second category is much more serious: substantive violations. This happens when you are arrested or charged with an entirely new crime while you are still serving your probationary sentence. When a new charge is thrown into the mix, the court’s patience wears thin quickly, and prosecutors often push aggressively for jail time.

The process itself moves much faster than a traditional criminal case. Usually, the moment a violation is reported, a judge signs a probation warrant. In many jurisdictions, these warrants carry no bond, meaning you could be arrested and held in the county jail with no immediate way to bail yourself out while you wait for your day in court. When you finally stand before the judge, there is no jury. Instead, it is an evidentiary hearing where the judge listens to the probation officer, looks at the evidence, and hears from your defense attorney before making an immediate decision on your freedom.

If the judge decides that a violation did happen, they hold immense power over what comes next, and their choices run along a wide spectrum. On the lighter end, they might choose to simply modify your probation. This means you stay out of jail, but they add stricter rules like continuous alcohol monitoring, more frequent reporting, or mandatory counseling. On the harsher end, the judge can order a partial or full revocation. They can send you to a local jail for a few months to “send a message,” or they can completely cancel your probation and order you to serve the remainder of your original sentence behind bars in state prison.

Because the stakes are so high and the legal standards favor the state, facing a revocation alone is a massive risk. An experienced defense attorney approaches these hearings with a two-part battle plan. First, we aggressively challenge the state’s evidence. We look at whether a positive drug screen followed proper lab protocols, or whether a missed meeting was actually a willful failure or the result of a medical emergency. Second, we focus heavily on mitigation. Even if a technical mistake happened, we build a compelling narrative around your life, showing the judge your steady employment, your deep family ties, and your overall track record of compliance. The goal is to humanize you and show the court that keeping you in the community is far more productive than sending you to a prison cell.

Under Georgia law (O.C.G.A. 40-6-270) , a driver involved in an accident that results in injury, death, or damage to an attended vehicle must immediately stop at the scene (or as close as possible), return if necessary, and:

• Provide their name, address, and vehicle registration information;
• Display their driver’s license upon request;
• Render reasonable assistance to any injured person; and
• Contact emergency services and law enforcement when an injured person is unconscious, appears deceased, or cannot communicate.

A conviction for Hit and Run can carry significant criminal and administrative consequences, including a permanent impact on your criminal record and the suspension of your driving privileges. In cases where an accident results in serious bodily injury or death, a Hit and Run offense may be prosecuted as a felony, carrying a potential sentence of up to three years of imprisonment.

More commonly, when the accident involves damage to another person’s vehicle or property, a conviction for Hit and Run may result in up to twelve months in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. Additionally, a conviction can lead to the suspension of your driver’s license, creating further challenges in your daily life.

If you have been charged with Hit and Run in Dekalb County, it is important not to assume that pleading guilty is your only option. Before appearing in court, contact our office to discuss your case and learn about the legal options available to protect your rights and your future.

Our attorneys have experience handling Hit and Run cases and are available to provide a free consultation. Call us today at 404-581-0999 to schedule an appointment and discuss your case as soon as possible.