 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bovee v. Municipality of Anchorage11/8/2000
olations. McCollum, 808 P.2d at 270.
Bovee was obviously seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when the police pulled her over. But, given the totality of the circumstances, that seizure was not significantly more coercive than a typical traffic stop. We therefore conclude that the officers did not need to give Miranda warnings to Bovee.
Bovee's other argument on appeal is that the police administered a portable breath test to her before they had probable cause to arrest her. (Alaska law forbids the police from requiring a person to take the portable breath test unless they have probable cause to arrest. ) But Bovee's argument hinges on viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to herself. We are obliged to view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the district court's ruling.
The officer administered the portable breath test to Bovee just before he arrested her. By that point, the police had seen Bovee engage in erratic driving and, during the investigative stop, they had observed and smelled several signs of Bovee's intoxication. In addition, Bovee had failed several field sobriety tests. Based on this evidence, District Court Judge Natalie K. Finn found that the arresting officer already had probable cause to believe that Bovee was driving while intoxicated when he asked Bovee to take the portable breath test. We agree.
For these reasons, we conclude that Judge Finn properly denied Bovee's suppression motions. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|