 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Charles v. State3/17/2004
police contacted Charles in the sauna and the time when Charles found and unlocked his truck. Until the three arrived at Charles's truck, the tone of the questioning was conversational. The record shows that the police took no action, nor gave Charles any actual indication of custody, such that a reasonable person would feel he was not free to leave and break off police questioning.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that because Charles was not subjected to custodial interrogation, Miranda warnings were not required. Accordingly, Judge Wood did not err when he denied the motion to suppress Charles's statements to the police that he had driven his truck to campus after drinking alcoholic beverages.
Was the search of the gym bag unlawful?
Charles also claims that the police had no justification for their warrantless search of his gym bag. Judge Wood, however, found that Charles had validly consented to the search. Judge Wood found that Charles's consent was "very clear and audible on the [audiotape of the police contact with Charles]. There's no misunderstanding and I find that the consent to search the bag is voluntary and knowing and not a product of overbearing intimidation by the police officers."
We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's suppression ruling. We reverse the trial court's factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous. When reviewing a trial court's conclusions regarding the defendant's state of mind and the issue of voluntariness, we must "examine the entire record and make an independent determination." Applying this standard, we conclude that the record supports Judge Wood's ruling.
Conclusion
The decisions of the district court are AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|