 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. MCKECHNIE3/12/1997
nnan, 386 Mass. 772, 438 N.E.2d 60, 64 (1982) (defendant's performance in finger-to-nose test, while picking up coins, and while walking a straight line not
[ 10] We endorse the rationale expressed in Muniz, and conclude that the results of the heel-to-toe and finger-to-nose tests obtained in this case are not communicative in nature. They are simply tests designed to reveal a "lack of muscular coordination" that may evidence impairment resulting from the use of alcohol. The tests do not elicit testimony. Because the Fifth Amendment only prohibits the compulsion of testimony, Miranda warnings need not have preceded the tests. Similarly, because the protections of the Maine Constitution only extend to testimonial evidence, the state privilege was not implicated by the administration of the two dexterity tests in question. State v. Eastman, 1997 ME 39, 691 A.2d 179 (1997). The Superior Court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|