 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hughes v. State6/17/1997
e State. Such questions are, moreover, in keeping with the questions at issue in State v. Geasley, 85 Ohio App. 3d 360, 619 N.E.2d 1086 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993), the case upon which the Court of Special Appeals relied in concluding that the routine booking question exception applied in the instant case. In Geasley, the court held that "asking an arrestee whether he has recently seen a physician, is taking medication, or has any medical condition requiring special treatment is a legitimate police concern when booking a suspect." Geasley, 619 N.E.2d at 1093. The court did not address the validity of a question about general narcotics or drug use.
V.
In sum, we conclude that certain routine questions asked during the booking process are ordinarily exempt from the requirements of Miranda. The routine booking question exception, however, does not encompass questions that are designed to elicit incriminating admissions. In order to determine whether a particular question is designed to, or reasonably likely to, elicit an incriminating response, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the context of the questioning and the content of the question. An incriminating answer does not mean an otherwise standard booking question was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The intent of the police officer in posing the question may be relevant to a determination of the applicability of the exception, but it does not control. Doe, 878 F.2d at 1551 (observing that "the question is an objective one; the officer's actual belief or intent is relevant, but it is not conclusive")(emphasis in original); Disla, 805 F.2d at 1347 (stating that "the officer's intent ... is relevant, but not decisive").
Notwithstanding our decision to recognize a routine booking question exception to Miranda, we hold that the question at issue in the instant case as to whether the arrestee is a "narcotics or drug user" does not fall within the scope of that exception. Particularly where, as here, an individual is arrested for suspected involvement in the distribution of illegal drugs, this question is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The petitioner's negative response to the question thus should have been suppressed, and the trial judge's admission of testimony concerning that answer amounts to error. For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the intermediate appellate court.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY AND REMAND THIS CASE TO THAT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|