After a traffic stop and field-sobriety tests, a Georgia officer arrested Michael Sauls for driving under the influence and other offenses. The officer read from the statutory implied-consent card, but Sauls interrupted before the notice was completed, and the officer did not tell him that his refusal of chemical testing could be used against him in a later criminal prosecution. The trial court suppressed the refusal evidence, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals. Georgia law requires the implied-consent notice to be read in its entirety and to remain substantively accurate, even though the officer need not use the exact statutory wording. The warning about criminal use of a refusal informs the driver of a potentially serious consequence affecting liberty and is material to an informed decision about testing. The court distinguished cases involving less significant omissions and held that the notice given to Sauls was not substantively accurate. The refusal evidence was therefore properly suppressed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.