 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Haley3/18/2003
ffic stop and were made prior to the defendant's being taken into custody for driving on a suspended license. In so ruling, the court cited Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984), and State v. Holman, 221 Neb. 730, 380 N.W.2d 304 (1986). In Berkemer, an officer noticed the defendant's car weaving out of its traffic lane. After stopping the defendant, who exhibited trouble standing, the officer concluded the defendant would be arrested for a traffic violation. The defendant was also required to perform field sobriety tests and was questioned regarding his use of intoxicants. The Berkemer Court held that roadside questioning of a driver detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute custodial interrogation subject to the dictates of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). The Court reasoned that even though a driver is detained pursuant to a traffic stop, there must be some further action or treatment by the police to render the driver "'in custody'" and entitled to Miranda warnings. Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 441. The Court noted that there are two features of an ordinary traffic stop that mitigate the danger that a person's free exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination would be impaired. First, traffic stops are presumptively brief, with motorists generally obliged to answer a few questions and to wait while the officer checks license and registration. Second, circumstances surrounding the typical traffic stop are not such that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police. Most importantly, such a stop is public, subject to witness by passersby. In addition, a detained motorist is typically confronted by only one or two police officers. Id.
The Nebraska Supreme Court adopted the holding of Berkemer in Holman, supra, a case in which the defendant was stopped after she ran two stop signs. The officer could see four new truck tires in the open trunk of the vehicle. While she sat in her vehicle, the defendant gave the officer her license and registration and was asked about the ownership of the tires. The officer asked the defendant to step out of her vehicle and then placed her in his cruiser while he ran a check of her driver's history, her registration, and her background for warrants. Under questioning by the officer, the defendant repeatedly denied that the tires were hers, although she claimed she knew who owned them. The defendant was arrested after the routine checks revealed that there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest and that her driver's license had been suspended. The defendant was later charged with theft of the tires. She sought to suppress her statements regarding the tires as violative of her right against self-incrimination.
The Nebraska Supreme Court stated that upon stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation, it is lawful to detain the driver while checking the registration and the license of the driver. Because the facts in Holman did not indicate that there had been some further action or treatment by the police officer to render the driver "'in custody,'" the defendant's statements were held to be admissible. 221 Neb. at 736-37, 380 N.W.2d at 309.
In the instant case, Haley argues that the questioning was clearly custodial and was not part of a routine traffic stop. He points to several factors which he believes distinguishes his case from the facts in Berkemer and Holman. For instance, Haley notes that he was outside of the vehicle when he was contacted by officers and was therefore detained on the street in contrast to the more typical situation in which the driver remains seated in the vehicle after being pulled over by police. We fail to see, however
Page 1 2 3 4 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|