Ingle v. State
| Decision Date | 02 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 45771,45771,3 |
| Citation | 179 S.E.2d 305,123 Ga.App. 56 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Arnold INGLE v. The STATE |
McCamy, Minor, Phillips & Tuggle, J. T. Fordham, Dalton, for appellant.
Robert B. Adams, Dist. Atty., Dalton, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, 993. The case continues: 'An understanding of the nature and setting of this in-custody interrogation is essential to our decisions today' and then proceeds to give examples ranging from physical brutality to prolonged questioning, which take place in privacy and represent an effort, physically or psychologically oriented, to obtain admissions or a confession from the person who has in the interrogator's judgment become the prime suspect and against whom he is proceeding, at least in his own mind, in an accusatory rather than a generally investigative framework. In the present case the defendant's automobile had been seen leaving the driveway of a house which soon thereafter was discovered to have been burglarized and the license number was furnished to the police. On the following day the police, bearing a proper warrant to search the car identified by description and license number found it in the street and sent word to the defendant inside the house to come out, whereupon they served him with the warrant and proceeded with the search. The defendant asked why the car was being searched, was informed that there had been a burglary, asked where and was informed of the location, volunteered that he had never been there and was informed that perhaps someone else was driving the car, and replied that that was not so as only he had been driving his car. This is not the sort of 'in-custody interrogation' forbidden by the Miranda case without prior warning to the defendant, regardles of whether the peace officer, who had not arrested the defendant at that point, would have done so if he had attempted to leave the scene. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellison v. State
...State, 257 Ga. 243, 247(3)(a), 357 S.E.2d 48 (1987). 4. Quinn v. State, 209 Ga.App. 480, 481(2), 433 S.E.2d 592 (1993). 5. 123 Ga.App. 56(1), 179 S.E.2d 305 (1970). 6. Id. Accord Quinn, supra. 7. Nix v. State, 280 Ga. 141, 142(3), 625 S.E.2d 746 (2006). 8. Id. 9. Bales v. State, 277 Ga. 713......
-
Wilburn v. State
...deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." (Punctuation omitted.) Id. at 481, 433 S.E.2d 592. Citing Ingle v. State, 123 Ga.App. 56, 179 S.E.2d 305 (1970), we concluded that "[t]his is not the sort of in-custody interrogation forbidden by the Miranda case without prior warni......
-
Hodges v. State, S95A1079
...State, 252 Ga. 286, 313 S.E.2d 95 (1984) (defendant is not in custody because he accompanies police to stationhouse); Ingle v. State, 123 Ga.App. 56, 179 S.E.2d 305 (1970) (defendant not in custody when questioned in his house even though police were armed with search 3. Over Hodges' object......
-
Ingram v. State
...208 S.E.2d 806; Jones v. State, 127 Ga.App. 137(4), 193 S.E.2d 38; Boorstine v. State, 126 Ga.App. 90(1), 190 S.E.2d 83; Ingle v. State, 123 Ga.App. 56, 179 S.E.2d 305. That the advice given did not include advice that Ingram could stop the questioning at any time during the interrogation a......