 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cleveland2/26/2003
209, 10 P.3d at 730, and contrasting it with the "show of force and authority" involved in Ketchum). Officer Vickers questioned Cleveland at the scene of the accident (a public place), immediately following the accident, and after Cleveland approached Officer Vickers of his own accord.
Consequently, Officer Vickers was not required to provide Cleveland with Miranda warnings prior to questioning him regarding the cause of the motor vehicle accident in which Cleveland was involved. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in denying Cleveland's motion to suppress. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court's judgment from which the appeal is taken is affirmed.
CONCURRING OPINION BY ACOBA, J.
I concur in the result because it has been long established by prior cases, i.e. precedent, that police questioning necessary to obtain information on a traffic stop does not amount to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 437-39 (1984) (a traffic stop is "presumptively" temporary and brief and the circumstances of a traffic stop are not as "police dominated" as the interrogations found objectionable in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), unless further circumstances rendered the suspect "in custody"); State v. Kuba, 68 Haw. 184, 188, 706 P.2d 1305, 1309 (1985) (questioning which resulted in the defendant's admission that he had consumed four beers and smoked marijuana did not rise to custodial interrogation because the officer engaged in "legitimate, straightforward, and non-coercive questioning necessary to obtain information to issue a traffic citation"); State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 300, 687 P.2d 544, 550 (1984) (Miranda warnings not mandated prior to questioning the defendant or administering a field sobriety test for driving under the influence ).
|