 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Williams6/22/2005
y Baker testified at the suppression hearing that he approached the appellant's truck and asked the appellant if he had been drinking. According to the State's argument to the trial court during the suppression hearing, the appellant answered that he had consumed three or four beers. However, at the hearing, Deputy Baker did not testify that the appellant made such a statement and the statement does not appear in any of the exhibits introduced during the hearing. In any event, given that the appellant was not in custody when Deputy Baker approached the truck and asked the appellant if he had been drinking, there is no merit to the appellant's claim that the deputy improperly questioned him without having read the Miranda warnings. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138 (1984) (providing that persons detained temporarily for a traffic stop, even one investigating intoxication, are not "in custody" for the purposes of Miranda); see also State v. Roger Odell Godfrey, No. 03C01-9402-CR-00076, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 226, at *5-7 (Knoxville, Mar. 20, 1995) (relying on Berkemer and holding that a police officer's investigating an accident and asking a defendant whether he had been drinking did not violate Miranda).
III. Conclusion
Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|