 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kuba9/26/1985
oning.
The trial court suppressed the statements and concluded " hat the statement made by the Defendant was obtained as a result of custodial interrogation not preceded by adequate Miranda warnings. "Record at 127.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct but did grant the motion to dismiss and concluded, " hat there was insufficient evidence to support a finding a probable cause as to the charge of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, there being no corroborative evidence of same other than the Defendant's statement." Record at 132.
Finally, the trial court granted the motion to suppress the methaqualone tablets and concluded:
1. The recovery of the two and a half methaqualone tablets by Officer Coons was the fruit of the Defendant's arrest which was itself the fruit of the Defendant's illegal interrogation by Officer Torres.
2. That under State v. Medeiros, 4 Haw. App. 248, 665 P.2d 181(No. 8503, May 26, 1983), the fruits of an illegal interrogation in violation of an individual's constitutional rights to silence and an attorney must be suppressed and precluded from use at trial.
3. The evidence presented to the Grand Jury as to Count I only was legally insufficient to support a finding of probable cause.
Record at 136-37.
State filed a timely appeal on February 2, 1984.
II.
We will consider the issues presented in the following order: 1) the suppression of the incriminating statements; 2) the suppression of the methaqualone tablets; and 3) the dismissal of Count I of the indictment.
A.
The facts of this case are almost indistinguishable from the facts presented in State v. Wyatt, 67 Haw. 293, 687 P.2d 544 (1984). We noted there that the stopping of an automobile and the detaining of its occupants for a brief period during a traffic stop constituted a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979). 67 Haw. at , 687 P.2d at 549. Where, however, the seizure of the defendant is reasonable to investigate a traffic violation and the investigating police officer engages in legitimate, straightforward, and noncoercive questioning necessary to obtain information to issue a traffic citation, there is no custodial interrogation; no Miranda warnings are required before the police officer begins asking questions. Id. at , 687 P.2d at 549-50.
In Wyatt, police officers stopped Wyatt's car for driving without headlights on at night. Investigating Police Officer Main then asked Wyatt to produce identification. While Wyatt was looking through her purse for her driver's license and no-fault insurance card:
Officer Main became aware of a smell of intoxicating liquor emanating from the passenger compartment of the automobile. So he asked if she had been drinking, which she readily admitted. She told him she had a drink earlier that night and then volunteered she had been cited for three traffic violations a few minutes earlier. At this juncture, the officer ordered her to alight from the car and proceeded to administer a field sobriety test. When it indicated she might have been driving while under the influence of intoxicants, she was arrested for violating HRS § 291-4.
67 Haw. at , 687 P.2d at 548 (footnote o
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|