 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Lafleur7/14/2003
t law enforcement agents will use oppressive or abusive tactics and renders the situation less 'police-dominated.'" Ibid. The court concluded that the concerns triggering Miranda protections --that compelling and lasting pressure would work to undermine the individual's will to resist questioning -- were therefore not present.
The insights of Wilson inform the application of the familiar four factors to the issue whether the defendant in the instant case was in custody when questioned. See note 2, supra. (1) The questioning occurred in public and EMT personnel were present thereby diminishing the possibility of police domination. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 445. Officer Joy was also apparently the only police officer present during the questioning. (2) Joy did not convey to the defendant that he was suspected of a crime. (3) The interrogation was brief and "influenced in its contours" by what the defendant told the EMT personnel. (4) Finally, a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have understood that his detention was by medical personnel for medical purposes, and its length would therefore be determined by his medical condition, not by his refusal to provide answers to questions posed by Officer Joy. As a result, a reasonable person in the defendant's position would not have felt compelled to answer the officer's questions while he was confined to the stretcher. We conclude that the defendant's physical restraint by the EMTs did not create an inherently coercive, police-dominated situation, and the protections of Miranda were not triggered. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 390 Mass. 729, 737-738 (1984).
Order allowing motion to suppress reversed.
Page 1 2 3 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|