 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Feasel3/29/1988
or. According to the Supreme Court in Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), 468 U.S. 420, a person arrested for driving while intoxicated is entitled to his Miranda warnings:
"We hold therefore that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in Miranda, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he is suspected or for which he was arrested. * * *" Id. at 434.
It is undisputed that defendant was read his Miranda warnings upon arriving at the Tiffin Police Department, and before he took the breathalyzer test and answered the questions on the interview sheet. Thus, the municipal court correctly ruled that this evidence should not be suppressed.
However, we must also consider that time period when defendant was first stopped by Officer Eckelberry and before he was read his Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court in Berkemer, supra, was asked to decide if the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop was a custodial interrogation that required the officer to read the person detained Miranda warnings. The court held that it was not, explaining as follows:
"First, detention of a motorist pursuant to a traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief. * * *
"Second, circumstances associated with the typical traffic stop are not such that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police. * * * In short, the atmosphere surrounding an ordinary traffic stop is substantially less 'police dominated' than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda itself * * *." Berkemer, supra, at 437-439.
Defendant was observed driving erratically and was stopped by Officer Eckelberry for violating a traffic law. According to Berkemer, supra, Officer Eckelberry was under no obligation to read defendant his Miranda warnings until he determined that defendant should be arrested. Therefore, any evidence obtained during that time period when defendant was simply being detained to see if he could pass the field sobriety tests cannot be suppressed simply because defendant did not receive his Miranda warnings.
There was no testimony offered at the suppression hearing which indicated that defendant communicated with any police officer from the time he was arrested until he was read his Miranda warnings. The only communication that was implied was that defendant may have been asked, and consented, to taking the breathalyzer test before being read his rights. The court in South Dakota v. Neville (1983), 459 U.S. 553, 564, fn. 15, held that:
"In the context of an arrest for driving while intoxicated, a police inquiry of whether the suspect will take a blood-alcohol test is not an interrogation within the meaning of Miranda. As we stated in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980), police words or actions 'normally attendant to arrest and custody' do not constitute interrogation.* * * (Citations omitted.)
We find no error in a police officer asking defendant if he would submit to a breathalyzer test prior to receiving his Miranda warnings if, in fact, that occurred. These would have been police words normally attendant to arrest and custody and not interrogation.
We find the municipal court properly overruled defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant's assignment of error is not well-taken.
Judgment affirmed.
COLE and SHAW, JJ., concur.
|