After stopping Je Lag Kim for repeatedly leaving his lane, a police officer smelled alcohol, arrested him, read Georgia’s implied-consent notice, and asked whether he would submit to state tests of his breath and blood. Kim said yes, and a breath test showed an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The trial court suppressed the result, reasoning that requesting both tests at once was misleading because refusing a breath test cannot be used at trial while refusing a blood test can, and that the statute contemplates one test per request. The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that requesting consent to breath and blood testing together did not render Kim’s consent to the breath test involuntary. The court explained that the statute expressly lets officers designate the “test or tests” to be given, that the notice read to Kim accurately described his right to refuse and the different consequences of refusing each kind of test, and that nothing in the record showed confusion, coercion, or impairment. It rejected the argument that its earlier cases permitting multiple-test requests were outdated, because the governing question remains whether the notice was substantively accurate enough to allow an informed decision.