 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harbuck v. State9/8/1999
statement. We find this contention meritless. Under Stephan, police are generally required to record custodial interrogations in a place of detention. In Harbuck's case, however, there was no interrogation in a place of detention, and therefore, Stephan does not apply. Accordingly, we find no error.
Harbuck also contends that the Intoximeter results should have been suppressed because the troopers did not tape record the entire fifteen-minute observation period. Generally, the administration of a breath test during DWI processing is not considered custodial interrogation, and there is no requirement that the observation period be tape recorded. Moreover, Judge Pengilly found that the Stephan recording requirement did not apply because there was "no dispute about what was said during the period of time that was not recorded." Accordingly, we find no error.
Harbuck's final contention is not a separate claim of error; rather, he asserts that if he prevails on this appeal, then he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. Because he has not prevailed, we decline to address this contention.
We AFFIRM the conviction.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|