 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. IZZO4/26/1993
be searched." State v. Tomah, 586 A.2d 1267, 1269 (Me. 1991). We hold that, given this particular set of facts, the trial court did not err in concluding that Officer Boucher's warrantless search of Izzo's vehicle was supported by probable cause.
Izzo further argues that the search of his vehicle's trunk, conducted after the search of the vehicle's interior, was improper. The search of the trunk, conducted with Izzo's consent, uncovered a significant amount of L.S.D. and a 12-gauge pump shotgun. Izzo now claims his consent was invalid because it was coerced and, therefore, not voluntarily given. We need not address Izzo's argument, however, for Izzo's consent was unnecessary. Probable cause to search the entire vehicle existed. Specifically, probable cause entitles the police to search any containers within the vehicle that might reasonably contain the objects of the search. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2172, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); State v. Patten, 457 A.2d 806, 811 (Me. 1983). Since marijuana could have been concealed in the trunk, Boucher was permitted to search the trunk. This conclusion is further supported by Izzo's voluntary statement that " here is a possibility that I might have some acid . . . in my suitcase. . . ." Therefore, we conclude that the search of the vehicle's trunk was proper.
III.
Miranda
Izzo contends that the trial court erred in not suppressing all statements made during Officer Boucher's roadside investigation. Specifically, Izzo maintains that he made statements, while in police custody, and before he had been given warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The court concluded that Izzo's statements were voluntarily made in a noncustodial setting and denied Izzo's motion to suppress.
"Miranda warnings are mandated only where a suspect is both in custody and subjected to interrogation as these terms are understood under the Miranda doctrine." State v. Philbrick, 436 A.2d 844, 848 (Me. 1981) (citations omitted). " he trial court's finding of no custodial interrogation will be upheld if the record provides rational support for that determination." State v. Pinkham, 556 A.2d 658, 659 (Me. 1989) (citing State v. Thibodeau, 496 A.2d 635, 638 (Me. 1985), cert. denied 475 U.S. 1141, 106 S.Ct. 1793, 90 L.Ed.2d 338 (1986)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 855, 110 S.Ct. 160, 107 L.Ed.2d 117 (1989). The trial court's denial, in the present case, of Izzo's motion to suppress is supported by the record. During the course of the roadside investigation, Izzo was free to walk around the area, to walk into the adjoining woods, and talk with Stutz. See State v. Hewes, 589 A.2d 460, 461 (Me. 1991) (custody exists
The entry is:
Judgments affirmed.
All concurring.
Page 1 2 3 4 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|