After a vehicle collision, a Georgia State Patrol trooper observed signs of possible intoxication in Thomas Baddeley and asked him to submit to a state-administered blood test. Baddeley initially refused, then agreed after the trooper explained that refusal would result in an immediate loss of his license. The trial court suppressed the blood-test result, finding that Baddeley had been intimidated and coerced. The Court of Appeals reversed. Although implied-consent procedures do not by themselves establish voluntary consent, the majority held that the totality of the circumstances did not show that the trooper used fear, threats, or coercion to obtain the test. A dissent would have deferred to the trial judge’s credibility finding that Baddeley’s testimony about the trooper’s intimidating demeanor was believable. The majority concluded that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard to the undisputed circumstances and that the blood-test result should not have been suppressed.