 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dixon5/7/2004
n the back of the patrol car, and he was not informed that the officer intended to arrest him until after the alco-sensor test. See Harmon v. State, 253 Ga.App. at 141(1), 558 S.E.2d 733. "Nor did [Dixon] testify at the motion to suppress or otherwise present evidence to support the notion that a reasonable person would have believed [himself] to be in custody." Id. Regardless of the officer's subjective belief about the outcome of the traffic stop, therefore, just as in Harmon v. State, there was no evidence whatsoever that the officer communicated to Dixon his intent to arrest before asking Dixon to take the alco-sensor test. Id.
Because the court received no evidence supporting a finding that under the circumstances an ordinary person would have reasonably *322 believed that he was in custody, the trial court erred in excluding evidence of **286 Dixon's pre-arrest performance on the alco-sensor test. State v. Picot, 255 Ga.App. at 515-516(2), 565 S.E.2d 865; State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga.App. 474, 477-478, 502 S.E.2d 314 (1998).
Judgment reversed.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|