Loden v. State, A05A0536.
| Decision Date | 14 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. A05A0536.,A05A0536. |
| Citation | 271 Ga. App. 632,610 S.E.2d 593 |
| Parties | LODEN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Banks, Stubbs, Neville & Cunat, Rafe Banks, III, Cumming, for appellant.
N. Stanley Gunter, District Attorney, Kimberly A. Pritchard, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Following a bench trial, a judge found Michael Loden guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was a less safe driver. Loden appeals, contending the trial court erroneously concluded that Miranda warnings were not required because he was not "in custody" at the time of the field sobriety tests. We find no error and affirm Loden's conviction.
Viewed in a light most favorable to support the judgment, the evidence shows that a trooper with the Georgia State Patrol observed Loden traveling at a high rate of speed. The trooper confirmed that Loden was exceeding the speed limit through radar and initiated a traffic stop. While speaking with Loden, the trooper detected an odor of alcohol and asked Loden if he had been drinking. Loden initially denied having had any alcohol. The trooper then asked Loden to step out of the car. As the trooper spoke with Loden, Loden revealed that he had had three drinks, then indicated that he had had five drinks.
The trooper administered an alco-sensor test, which indicated the presence of alcohol. The trooper then asked Loden to perform field sobriety tests, and Loden agreed to the tests. Based on the results of the field sobriety evaluations, as well as the trooper's experience, training and observations, the trooper placed Loden under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol.
In his sole enumeration of error, Loden contends the trial court erred in concluding that he was not in custody at the time he performed the field sobriety evaluations. Loden argues that despite the fact that he had not been formally arrested at the time of his field sobriety tests, he was effectively in custody; therefore, Miranda warnings were required prior to administration of the tests. We disagree.
The trial court found that Loden was not in custody or under arrest until after the trooper completed his DUI investigation. "The issue of whether one is in custody for Miranda purposes is a mixed question of law and fact, and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous."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.2
Here, the trooper did not make any statement or otherwise act in such a way that would cause a reasonable person to believe that he was under arrest and not simply temporarily detained for further investigation pursuant to an admission that he had consumed a few drinks.3 Loden was not handcuffed, secured in the back of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammond
...omitted). 34. Pierce, 266 Ga.App. at 235(1), 596 S.E.2d 725. 35. Brown, 223 Ga.App. at 367, 477 S.E.2d 623. 36. Loden v. State, 271 Ga.App. 632, 633, 610 S.E.2d 593 (2005). Compare Wintker, 223 Ga.App. at 68–69, 476 S.E.2d 835 (detainee was “in custody” for purposes of Miranda after observi......
- Timmons v. Cook
-
Doyle v. State
...law Miranda warnings must precede a request to perform a field sobriety test only when the suspect is `in custody.'" Price v. State.7 See Loden v. State;8 Hennings v. State;9 State v. O'Donnell;10 see also Keenan v. State11 (when not in custody, request to take alcosensor test need not be p......
-
Bramlett v. State
...person to believe that he was not merely temporarily detained during an investigation") (footnote omitted). 6 See Loden v. State, 271 Ga.App. 632, 633, 610 S.E.2d 593 (2005) ("The issue of whether one is in custody for Miranda purposes is a mixed question of law and fact, and the trial cour......