Mia Ammons was prosecuted for driving under the influence after declining a preliminary breath test, field-sobriety testing, and a warrantless blood test. She argued that using evidence of those refusals violated the Georgia Constitution’s protection against compelled self-incrimination and that Georgia statutes allowing refusal evidence were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Georgia examined the text and history of the implied-consent statutes and the constitutional protections applicable to physical evidence and testimonial communications. The Court held that the challenged use of refusal evidence did not violate the asserted constitutional provisions under the circumstances presented. The opinion also addressed the statutory framework governing requests for testing and the consequences of a driver’s refusal. The judgment below was affirmed.