 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Abrahamson v. State11/30/2005
ergeant could have made an arrest himself. However, in the exercise of his discretion, he opted instead to detain Abrahamson briefly until the case could be turned over to an on-duty DUI officer. It was this officer who made the formal arrest after determining that Abrahamson was a less-safe driver.
The real question before us is whether either the sergeant or the DUI officer was required to read Abrahamson Miranda warnings prior to the DUI officer conducting his investigation and attempting field sobriety tests. The answer to that question is, as we have said on many occasions: Miranda warnings are required only if the detention has ripened into a custodial arrest. See, e.g., State v. Foster, 255 Ga. App. 704 (566 SE2d 418 (2002) (" he proper inquiry whether [the defendant] had been restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest, not whether the police had probable cause to arrest.") (citation and punctuation omitted); Harper v. State, 243 Ga. App. 705, 705-706 (1) (534 SE2d 157) (2000) ("not every detention is an arrest"). Because the facts of Harper are so similar to the ones before us, portions of that opinion bear repeating:
The trial court found that Harper was placed in custody only after Officer Garrison[, the DUI officer] completed his DUI investigation. The issue of whether one is in custody for Miranda purposes is a mixed question of law and fact, and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. The test for determining whether a person is "in custody" at a traffic stop is if a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have thought the detention would not be temporary. Harper emphasizes the length of time from the traffic stop to the arrival of the DUI task force officer and argues that because of the excessive delay, his detention ripened into an arrest. . . . Officer Stewart estimates the wait was only a few minutes while Harper testified that it was approximately a half-hour, and other evidence would support a finding that the delay lasted up to an hour. We have previously held that a wait of 45 to 50 minutes from the time of a traffic stop to the commencement of an investigative search of a car did not convert the investigation into a custodial situation. Here, Harper was allowed to walk around. He was not placed in the back of the police car, nor was he handcuffed. Officer Stewart told Harper that he had called for a DUI task force officer because he was under suspicion of DUI. And although Officer Stewart told Harper that he was not free to leave while they waited for the DUI task force to arrive, not every detention is an arrest. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person could conclude that his freedom of action was only temporarily curtailed and that a final determination of his status was simply delayed. The trial court's finding that Harper was placed under arrest only after the field sobriety test is not clearly erroneous.
(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied). Harper v. State, 243 Ga. App. at 705-706 (1).
In the instant case, Abrahamson was detained for 10 to 15 minutes. She was not handcuffed. The sergeant asked that she remain in her car for her safety until the DUI officer arrived. As in Harper, a reasonable person could conclude that her freedom of action was only temporarily curtailed and that a final determination of her status was simply delayed. Consequently, Abrahamson was not subjected to a custodial arrest and Miranda warnings were not required. We find no error.
Judgment affirmed. Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|