 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vanhouton v. Com.3/3/1997
icative value because it does not convey knowledge of any fact specific to the person being questioned. In a road-side drunk driving inquiry by a police officer, the recitation determines only whether the motorist's memory is impaired and whether the motorist has sufficient mental coordination to perform a rudimentary psychological exercise. In this respect, the test is directed at the reflexive functioning of the motorist's mental processes, and it provides a basis for ascertaining the extent to which those processes may be affected by the motorist's consumption of alcohol. Further, the fact that the motorist might slur his or her speech while reciting the alphabet, thereby indicating intoxication, is not significant. "The physical inability to articulate words in a clear manner due to 'the lack of muscular coordination of . . . tongue and mouth' . . . is not itself a testimonial component of [the suspect's] responses to [the investigating police officer's] . . . questions." Pennsylvania v. Muniz, supra at 590-591. "Certainly, [the defendant's] inability to recite the alphabet . . . incriminated him. Intoxication increases reaction time and reduces speed of motor responses, including those of auditory discrimination and judgment. . . . The [test] did not require the [defendant] to disclose his knowledge of his intoxication. [The test combined with the physical coordination tests] elicited tangible evidence of the . . . condition of the [defendant's] body. The responses were no more testimonial or communicative than a voice exemplar . . . or a blood sample . . ." (citations omitted). Edwards v. Bray, 688 F.2d 91, 92 (10th Cir. 1982).
The same Conclusion has been reached by the vast majority of other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue. The decisions hold that a straightforward alphabet recitation test (or comparable counting exercises), performed during a roadside investigation of suspected drunk driving , are outside the protective sphere of the privilege against self-incrimination because there is no disclosure of subjective knowledge or thought processes in a constitutionally prohibited sense. See State v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 275, 742 P.2d 286 (Ct. App. 1987); Oxholm v. District of Columbia, 464 A.2d 113, 114 (D.C. 1983); Lankford v. State, 204 Ga. App. 405, 406-407, 419 S.E.2d 498 (1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1051, 122 L. Ed. 2d 127, 113 S. Ct. 972 (1993); People v. Bugbee, 201 Ill. App. 3d 952, 959, 147 Ill. Dec. 381, 559 N.E.2d 554 (1990); State v. Maze, 16 Kan. App. 2d 527, 532, 825 P.2d 1169 (1992); People v. Burhans, 166 Mich. App. 758, 762-763, 421 N.W.2d 285 (1988) (counting test); State v. Thompson, 237 Mont. 384, 387, 773 P.2d 722 (1989); State v. Zummach, 467 N.W.2d 745, 746 (N.D. 1991); State v. Medenbach, 48 Ore. App. 133, 616 P.2d 543 (1980); State v. Meek, 444 N.W.2d 48, 50 (S.D. 1989).
3. The order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed. The order allowing the defendant's motion to suppress with respect to evidence of the alphabet recitation test is reversed, and that part of the motion is denied. The order denying the remainder of the motion to suppress with respect to evidence of the heel-to-toe and leg-standing tests is affirmed.
So ordered.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|