 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Cameron2/4/1998
A complaint was issued in the Lawrence District Court charging the defendant with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant moved to suppress statements she made to the arresting officer and the results of field sobriety tests. The Judge allowed the motion after a hearing. The Commonwealth appeals, pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(2), 378 Mass. 882 (1979), on the grounds that (1) the judge erred in ruling that Miranda warnings were required prior to the performance of field sobriety tests; and (2) the Judge erred in finding that the defendant was in custody and, therefore, should have been given Miranda warnings prior to police questioning. We reverse.
We summarize the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress. On May 31, 1996, at approximately 11:49 P.M., Officer John Pickard of the North Andover police department was on duty, patrolling Salem Street. Officer Pickard observed an automobile parked at the side of the road with its four way hazard lights flashing. The defendant, who was walking near the automobile, told Officer Pickard that the car belonged to her and that it had a flat tire . Officer Pickard had American Automobile Association (AAA) roadside service contacted to repair the defendant's car after learning that she had this service.
Officer Pickard cancelled the AAA service and requested police backup to his location after he observed the defendant's staggering walk and the odor of alcohol on her breath. Thereafter, Pickard asked the defendant a series of questions, including whether she had been drinking, where she was traveling from, and how long she had been traveling on the flat tire . The defendant responded that she went out after work and consumed two margaritas. Officer Pickard then administered three field sobriety tests, all of which the defendant failed. He concluded that she was intoxicated and placed her under arrest. She was transported to the police station where she was given her Miranda warnings.
1. Suppression of real or physical evidence. The Judge ruled that because Officer Pickard did not furnish the defendant with the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), prior to administering the field sobriety tests, the test results must be suppressed.
Miranda warnings were designed to "secure the privilege against self-incrimination" during custodial interrogation. Id. The privilege against self-incrimination, however, "protects only against the compulsion of 'communications,' or 'testimony.' It does not bar compulsion 'which makes a suspect or accused the source of real or physical evidence.'" Commonwealth v. Brennan, 386 Mass. 772, 776 (1982), quoting from Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966). Because field sobriety tests have been held not to elicit testimonial or communicative evidence, they do not trigger the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or the self-incrimination provision of art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Commonwealth v. Brennan, 386 Mass. at 779, 783. Thus, contrary to the Judge's decision, Miranda warnings were not required prior to conducting the field sobriety tests.
2. Custody issue. The Judge ruled that the defendant was in custody when Officer Pickard cancelled the AAA roadside service and, therefore, should have been given Miranda warnings before questioning or administration of field sobriety tests.
Miranda warnings, as mentioned, are required only during custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 461. Custodial interrogation means "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into cu
Page 1 2 3 Massachusetts DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|