DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

State v. Wallace

7/22/2004

vehicle was stolen. 21. After about five minutes Defendant approached the officers a second time. 22. Defendant asked what was going on, what officers were doing with the truck, and what was up with the truck. 23. Defendant walked around the truck. 24. After noticing there were cigarettes in the truck, Defendant asked the officers if he could have the cigarettes to smoke. 25. Officers thought Defendant's actions were suspicious. 26. Officers then asked Defendant what he knew about the truck. 27. Defendant related he was there when the truck pulled up and a guy Defendant called "haole Jeff" parked the truck and ran away. 28. During this conversation with police, Defendant appeared nervous and jittery, he would not make eye contact, and he kept playing with his clothes. 29. Based on the fact that Defendant matched the description of the driver coupled with his unusual behavior, Officer Adachi came to the conclusion that Defendant knew more than what he was telling police. 30. At this point, Officer Adachi informed Defendant of his Miranda rights utilizing M.P.D. form 103. 31. Officer Adachi, using M.P.D. form 103, read each line to Defendant, out loud, explained each right, and had Defendant initial next to each right, indicating Defendant understood the right. 32. Officer Adachi then had Defendant sign his name on the form indicating Defendant understood his rights. *1280 33. Defendant then refused to sign the waiver of rights portion of M.P.D. form 103. 34. The waiver of rights portion of M.P.D. form 103 states, "I am willing to make a statement and answer questions without talking to a lawyer or having a lawyer present. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or force of any kind has been used against me. I understand that I still have the right to stop answering questions or to ask for a lawyer at anytime." 35. Under this statement of waiver, there is a signature line. 36. Officer Adachi wrote "refused" on the signature line for the waiver of rights portion when Defendant refused to sign it. 37. Defendant stated he was willing to talk to police but he was not signing the form. 38. Officer Adachi did not clarify with Defendant whether or not his refusal to sign meant that he did want to consult with a lawyer. 39. Instead, Officer Adachi continued to question Defendant about the car. 40. As a result of Officer Adachi's questioning, Defendant admitted to driving the stolen vehicle. 41. Because of Defendant's admission, Defendant was placed under arrest for unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle and transported to the Wailuku Police station. .... (Emphases added.) The following relevant COLs are also set forth in the circuit court's June 12, 2003 FOF, COL and order: 4. When Defendant first approached Officer Rowe, Defendant was not in custody. 5. When Defendant approached the officers the second time, while they were investigating the truck, Defendant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings. 6. When Officer Adachi first began questioning Defendant about his knowledge of the vehicle, the questioning was for purposes of investigation and Defendant was not in custody. 7. When Officer Adachi developed the conclusion that Defendant knew more about the vehicle than what he was saying, the questioning ceased to be brief and casual and became sustained and coercive, requiring Miranda warnings. 8. The State has the burden to show that Defendant made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to remain silent. State v. Amorin, 61 Haw. 356, 604 P.2d 46 (1979); State v. Pahio, 58 Haw. 323, 569 P.2d 1200 (1977); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694] (1966). 9. The State has the burden to show that Defenda

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

Hawaii DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.