 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Nidiffer11/10/2004
sponding to the dissenting opinion, the majority stated the proper method of using the objective test when determining whether an arrest occurred:
The dissent opines that the definition of "arrest" adopted in Robertson and reaffirmed in West is no longer accurate. Cited are a series of United States Supreme Court cases and Tennessee cases that the dissent claims establish a new definition of arrest, to wit: "an arrest occurs if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have understood that he or she was not free to leave." This definition, however, fails to recognize the distinction between "seizure" and "arrest," discussed above. A person may be seized without being placed under custodial arrest. None of the cases cited by the dissent deal with this precise issue. While we agree that the "reasonable person" standard is a factor in determining whether an arrest has occurred, just as it would be for any seizure, we believe more is required to establish a custodial arrest for purposes of a search incident to an arrest.
Id. at 302 n.10.
In the context of what constitutes an arrest under the Fourth Amendment, we note that some federal courts have indicated the relevance of whether law enforcement officers inform a suspect that he or she is under arrest. See, e.g., Ochana v. Flores, 347 F.3d 266 (7th Cir. 2003) (stating the fact that the defendant "was not told that he was under arrest" is a factor to consider when determining whether an arrest has been effectuated within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment); United States v. McCaleb, 552 F.2d 717, 720 (6th Cir. 1977) (stating that "it does not take formal words of arrest or booking at a police station to complete an arrest"). We believe these cases demonstrate that, while not dispositive, an officer's telling a defendant he is under arrest is a substantive factor to consider when determining whether an arrest has occurred.
We hold that the defendant was under arrest when the officers read him the implied consent form. The officers entered the defendant's room, both armed and in uniform. They stood between the defendant's bed and the door. Officer Merritt testified that they would have stopped the defendant had he attempted to leave. Most importantly, the officers told the defendant, "You are under arrest." In this context, we believe that a reasonable person would have concluded that he or she was under arrest. See Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d at 302. This case is distinguishable from Crutcher because the officers took further action that indicated to the defendant that he was under arrest.
While it is true that the officers did not take the defendant to a detention facility, we believe this fact is not sufficiently significant. Immediately after leaving the defendant's room, the officers spoke with the defendant's doctor who told them the defendant would have to remain in the hospital overnight. The officers decided not to place an officer outside the defendant's door in order to take him into physical custody the moment he was released from the hospital. However, whether the officers took the defendant to the station house, released him to the custody of the hospital, or released him on his own recognizance is not dispositive as to whether the defendant was under arrest when the officers read him the implied consent form. Based upon the foregoing and the record as a whole, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|