Lipscomb v. State, 76523
| Decision Date | 08 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 76523,76523 |
| Citation | 372 S.E.2d 853,188 Ga.App. 322 |
| Parties | LIPSCOMB v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Herbert A. Rivers, Marietta, for appellant.
Patrick H. Head, Solicitor, Melodie H. Clayton, Amy A. Hembree, Asst. Solicitors, for appellee.
A police officer stopped defendant for failure to dim his headlights. When the officer asked him to produce his driver's license and proof of insurance, the police officer "observed the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath." The officer asked defendant if he had had anything to drink that day and defendant "said he had a few." Defendant was asked to perform routine field sobriety tests, was given an Alcosensor reading which showed positive results, and was then placed under arrest. Defendant contends that his convictions for failure to dim headlights and for DUI must be reversed because the convictions were based upon evidence gained as a result of an involuntary in-custody statement made without the giving of a Miranda warning. Held:
No Jackson- Denno hearing was requested here, nor was one formally held. However, it is clear from the testimony and from colloquy outside the presence of the jury that at the time the statement were made, defendant was detained only in a traffic stop. "Treatment of this sort cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Accord Mitchell v. State, 174 Ga.App. 594(2), 330 S.E.2d 798 (1985); Humphrey v. State, 174 Ga.App. 165(2), 329 S.E.2d 306 (1985); Chester v. State, 157 Ga.App. 191, 276 S.E.2d 684 (1981). Since defendant was not taken into custody for Miranda purposes until the officer arrested him shortly after he made the statements complained of here, his statements prior to the arrest were admissible against him.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kirbabas
...v. State, 216 Ga.App. 93, 95, 453 S.E.2d 35 (1994); Crum v. State, 194 Ga.App. 271, 272, 390 S.E.2d 295 (1990); Lipscomb v. State, 188 Ga.App. 322, 372 S.E.2d 853 (1988); Montgomery v. State, 174 Ga.App. 95, 329 S.E.2d 166 The trial court erred as a matter of law in applying the wrong legal......
-
Gray v. State
...384 U.S. 436, 476, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628-29, supra; see also Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569, 436 S.E.2d 475, supra; Lipscomb v. State, 188 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 ......
-
McCall v. State
...v. Lewry, 550 A.2d 64, 65 (Me.1988). Accord United States v. Tragash, 691 F.Supp. 1066, 1071 (S.D.Ohio, 1988); Lipscomb v. State, 188 Ga.App. 322, 372 S.E.2d 853, 853-54 (1988); People v. Schuld, 175 Ill.App.3d 272, 124 Ill.Dec. 819, 826, 529 N.E.2d 800, 807 (1988). "[M]otorists temporarily......
-
Keenan v. State
...there was no requirement that the request that he undergo the alco-sensor test be preceded by Miranda warnings. See Lipscomb v. State, 188 Ga.App. 322, 372 S.E.2d 853 (1988). Compare Hughes v. State, 259 Ga. 227, 228(2)(a), 378 S.E.2d 853 (1989). Since the Miranda warnings were unnecessary ......