 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Parker v. State6/30/2004
Gordon A. Parker appeals his conviction for felony driving while intoxicated. He contends that most of the evidence against him was the fruit of an unlawful investigative stop. Parker further contends that, during this investigative stop, he was subjected to custodial interrogation without receiving the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona. For the reasons explained here, we conclude that the investigative stop was supported by the facts known to the officer, and we further conclude that Parker was not in custody for Miranda purposes during this investigative stop.
Underlying Facts
On the evening of December 11, 2001, Alaska State Trooper Brian W. Barlow saw a car sitting alongside the roadway in a ditch. The car was not headed in the direction of traffic (as if the driver had pulled over into the ditch), but rather was facing against the direction of traffic. Trooper Barlow drove past the car, and then he activated his patrol vehicle's overhead emergency lights and made a U-turn to return to the car.
As Barlow pulled up to the car, he saw a man - later identified as Parker - run from the driver's side of the car. Parker ran across the road and then started running down an intersecting roadway.
Barlow (who was still in his vehicle) followed Parker for approximately 200 feet. Finally, Barlow drove past Parker, made another U-turn, and then stopped on the roadway approximately 20 feet in front of Parker. Parker had already come to a stop facing Barlow's patrol vehicle.
Barlow got out of his patrol vehicle and contacted Parker. Barlow asked Parker who he was, and if he was all right, and what was going on. Barlow observed that Parker was acting strangely, although Barlow initially could not determine whether Parker's strange behavior was due to injury or to intoxication. But after Barlow walked closer to Parker to continue the conversation, he could tell that Parker smelled of alcoholic beverages, that Parker's eyes were bloodshot and watery, and that Parker was swaying on his feet. Barlow also perceived that Parker's speech was slurred.
Barlow asked Parker if he had been drinking, but Parker initially denied it. Barlow then asked Parker if he had been driving the ditched car, and whether there had been any other people in the car. Parker said that there had been other people in the car, but he did not say who they were, or where they were currently.
Sometime during Barlow's conversation with Parker (a conversation that lasted approximately five minutes), Parker admitted that he had been drinking and that he had been driving. Parker also admitted that his driver's license was suspended.
Barlow administered some field sobriety tests to Parker, and Parker failed these tests. After Parker failed the sobriety tests, Barlow arrested him for driving while intoxicated. Following his arrest, Parker's breath was tested on a DataMaster, which showed that his blood alcohol content was .207 percent.
Parker was indicted for felony driving while intoxicated and charged by information with driving while his license was suspended. After he was indicted, Parker asked the superior court to suppress all of the statements that he made to Barlow before he was arrested. Parker argued that Barlow had lacked legal justification to stop him. Parker also argued, in the alternative, that Barlow should have advised Parker of his Miranda rights before talking to him.
Following an evidentiary hearing, Superior Court Judge Mark I. Wood denied Parker's suppression motion. Parker then entered a Cooksey plea to the felony DWI charge, preserving his right to argue the suppression issue on appeal. The State dismissed t
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|