 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kuba9/26/1985
mitted). We held that the totality of the circumstances indicated that the interrogation was not held in a custodial context, State v. Paahana, 66 Haw. 499, 503, 666 P.2d 592, 595 (1983), State v. Melemai, 64 Haw. 479, 481, 643 P.2d 541, 544 (1982), and the questioning did not "'subjugate the individual to the will of examiner' and thereby undermine the privilege against selfincrimination." Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 299 (1980) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 457-58). " he roadside questioning that led to the utterance of an inculpatory statement by the defendant did not rise to the level of interrogation calling for Miranda warnings." Wyatt, 67 Haw. at , 687 P.2d at 549 (emphasis in original). We see no difference in the present case.
B.
Here, the police officer stopped Defendant's car after observing it travelling at an abnormally low rate of speed and straddling two lanes of the highway. Defendant appeared unsteady and admitted drinking four beers as well as smoking marijuana after Officer Torres voiced his (Torres') suspicions and engaged in investigative questioning. The questioning is similar to that in Wyatt and does not rise to the level of custodial interrogation requiring that Miranda warnings be given.
The trial court, therefore, erred in suppressing the incriminating statements made by Defendant. The police officers were not required to give Defendant his Miranda rights prior to the traffic stop investigation under the facts of this case.
We also note that the United States Supreme Court has decided a case factually indistinguishable to the instant case, Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. , 104 S. Ct. 3138 (1984). We, however, reverse the order for suppression of statements based solely on our decision in Wyatt and make no comment on Berkemer other than that previously stated in Wyatt.
III.
Because the police did not illegally obtain Defendant's incriminating statements in violation of his Miranda rights, it necessarily follows that the methaqualone tablets were not fruits of any unlawful interrogation. The trial court erred, and the methaqulone tablets should not have been suppressed based on Medeiros, 4 Haw. App. 248, 665 P.2d 181 (1983).
Because Defendant's statements indicating he had smoked marijuana earlier were admissible, probable cause existed to arrest and to search Defendant for drugs. The order suppressing the methaqualone tablets is reversed.
IV.
This court has held that sufficient legal and competent evidence
before a grand jury which establishes probable cause that a suspect has violated the law will support an indictment. State v. Scotland, 58 Haw. 474, 476, 572 P.2d 497, 498 (1977). "Probable cause has been established when it can be said that a reasonable and prudent person viewing the evidence would have a strong suspicion that a crime had been committed." Toledo v. Lam, 67 Haw. 20, 21, 675 P.2d 773, 775 (1984) (citing State v. Freedle, 1 Haw. App. 396, 620 P.2d 740 (1980)). Furthermore, "every legitimate inference that may be drawn from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the indictment and neither the trial court nor the appellate court on review may substitute its judgment as the weight of the evidence for the Grand Jury." Freedle, 1 Haw. App. at 399,
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|