Hughes v. State
| Decision Date | 10 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 46585,46585 |
| Citation | 378 S.E.2d 853,259 Ga. 227 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Mary A. Stearnes and Melvin S. Nash, Marietta, for John Eric hughes.
Patrick H. Head, Sol., Melodie H. Clayton, and Beverly M. Hartung, Asst. Solicitors, Marietta, for the State.
After observing appellant Hughes' erratic driving, an off-duty police officer pulled behind Hughes' parked car, showed Hughes his identification, called for assistance, and refused to let Hughes leave. After talking with Hughes, the officer asked another officer who had arrived on the scene to give Hughes a sobriety test. The officers then placed Hughes under formal arrest for driving under the influence.
The trial court granted Hughes' motion to suppress. The trial court held that the situation had progressed beyond the point of an investigatory stop and that the officer had effected an arrest when he told Hughes he was not free to leave. Because Miranda warnings were not given at that time, the trial court suppressed the conversations and sobriety tests.
In State v. Hughes, 189 Ga.App. 671, 377 S.E.2d 192 (1988), the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the detention and refusal to let Hughes leave did not result in an arrest. Because the brief investigatory stop did not become an arrest until after Hughes performed the field sobriety tests, the Court of Appeals concluded that Miranda warnings were not necessary before the conversations or the tests.
On February 8, 1989 we granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the trial court's determination that the officer effected an arrest when he informed Hughes that he was not free to leave the scene of the initial stop.
1. 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. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Because there is evidence in the record to support the trial court's determination that Hughes was arrested when he was told he was not free to leave, we will not disturb it. State v. Louis, 185 Ga.App. 529, 364 S.E.2d 896 (1988). Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals' determination that this was not an arrest.
2. Because the police did not give Hughes Miranda warnings at the time of the arrest, the trial court suppressed all conversations between the officers and Hughes after the officer told Hughes he was not free to leave. The trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kirbabas
...Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151-52, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)." (Emphasis supplied.) Hughes v. State, 259 Ga. 227, 228, 378 S.E.2d 853 (1989); see also Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222, 498 S.E.2d 262 (1998); State v. O'Donnell, 225 Ga.App. 502, 503(1), 484 S.E.2d 313 In......
-
Gray v. State
...Ga.App. 322, 372 S.E.2d 853 (1988); Montgomery v. State, 174 Ga.App. 95, 96(1), 329 S.E.2d 166 (1985); compare Hughes v. State, 259 Ga. 227, 228(2)(a), 378 S.E.2d 853 (1989). Therefore, the Miranda warnings were not mandated; see Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569, 436 S.E.2d 475, supra. The tria......
-
State v. Maze
...Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Oxholm v. District of Columbia, 464 A.2d 113, 113-14 (D.C.1983); Hughes v. State, 259 Ga. 227, 378 S.E.2d 853, 854, cert. denied 493 U.S. 890, 110 S.Ct. 234, 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989); People v. Bugbee, 201 Ill.App.3d 952, 147 Ill.Dec. 381,......
-
State v. Randy J., 29,791.
...the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Super. Ct. of Ariz., 154 Ariz. 275, 742 P.2d 286, 289 (Ariz.Ct.App.1987); Hughes v. State, 259 Ga. 227, 378 S.E.2d 853, 854 (1989); State v. Maze, 16 Kan.App.2d 527, 825 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1992); Vanhouton, 676 N.E.2d at 466; State v. Devlin, 1999 MT 9......