 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Parker v. State6/30/2004
Miranda before he questioned Parker.
Before we address the merits of Parker's claim, we note that Parker faces a procedural hurdle. In order for a Cooksey plea to be valid, the issue(s) preserved for appeal must be dispositive of the case.
Here, Parker's Miranda issue is not dispositive of the suspended license charge and, quite possibly, is not dispositive of the DWI charge either. The test is whether, even if Parker's statements to Barlow were suppressed, the State would still have sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal. Even without Parker's statements, the State could present evidence that Barlow saw the car in the ditch, that he saw Parker run from the car when he activated his overhead lights, that the car was registered to "Gordon Parker Sr.", and that Parker was visibly intoxicated when Barlow caught up with him a few moments later.
Nevertheless, we conclude that the interests of justice would be served by treating Parker's flawed appeal of the Miranda issue as a petition for review, and then deciding this issue.
Even though investigative stops are seizures for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, Miranda warnings need not be given during every investigative stop. As we noted in McNeill v. State, 984 P.2d 5 (Alaska App. 1999),
The cases applying Miranda recognize that there are some Fourth Amendment seizures of temporary duration - most notably, routine traffic stops and other investigative stops - in which Miranda warnings are not required, even though the person is temporarily in custody and the police can properly ignore a request that the officers depart and leave the person alone.
Id. at 7.
Thus, the fact that Parker was in temporary custody because of the investigative stop does not mean that he was entitled to Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings would not be required until Barlow's seizure of Parker ripened into an arrest or into a custody equivalent to arrest.
Parker was not formally arrested until after he failed the field sobriety tests, and Parker has not shown that the circumstances of the investigative stop ripened into the equivalent of arrest before that time. We therefore conclude that Barlow was not obliged to give Miranda warnings to Parker before questioning him during the investigative stop.
Conclusion
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|