State v. Mauk
| Decision Date | 29 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No.1310011475 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
| Parties | STATE OF DELAWARE v. KIMBERLY S. MAUK, Defendant. |
Upon Defendant's Motion to Bar Statements
Procured in Violation of Miranda:DENIED
Upon Defendant's Motion to Suppress:DENIED
Edmund Daniel Lyons, Esquire, 1526 Gilpin Ave, Wilmington DE 19806, for Defendant.
Barzilai K. Axelrod, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, for the State of Delaware
Defendant Kimberly Mauk is charged with Driving a Vehicle while Under the Influence of Alcohol ("DUI"), two counts of Vehicular Assault First Degree, two counts of Vehicular Assault Second Degree, and Driving a Vehicle While License is Suspended or Revoked, relating to a two-vehicle collision that occurred on October 18, 2013. Mauk has filed a motion to suppress certain statements she made to the chief investigating officer and a motion to suppress the results of a blood test taken at the hospital. For the reasons stated below, Mauk's motions to suppress are DENIED.
On October 18, 2013, at approximately 6:49 p.m., Delaware State Trooper Cpl. Scott Mauchin ( ) was dispatched to a two-vehicle collision at the intersection of Concord Pike and Fairfax Boulevard in New Castle County Delaware.1 When Cpl. Mauchin arrived at the scene around 7:18 p.m., emergency medical technicians, fire department personnel, and two other Delaware State Troopers were already at the scene.2 Mauk was the only occupant in her vehicle and the second vehicle contained a family of four, including two adults and twochildren.3 All of the occupants of both vehicles were transported to Christiana Hospital by ambulance before Cpl. Mauchin had the chance to speak with any of them.4 According to three independent witnesses at the scene, the accident occurred when Mauk made a left turn across oncoming traffic.5 A second trooper at the scene advised Cpl. Mauchin that he had approached Mauk's vehicle and could smell alcoholic beverages coming from the front compartment area of the vehicle.6
Cpl. Mauchin left the accident scene and went to the hospital, where he arrived between 8:05 p.m. and 8:10 p.m..7 Upon arrival, after securing permission from Mauk's treating nurse,8 Cpl. Mauchin made contact with Mauk to make his own assessment of her and to determine what happened at the collision scene.9 When Cpl. Mauchin entered Mauk's hospital room, she was on a gurney with two IV lines in her arms.10 The only other person in the room was Nurse Mary Kathleen Fillingame ("Nurse Fillingame").11 Mauk had been administered 0.5 milligrams of Dilaudid, a narcotic pain medication.12 Nurse Fillingame, whoadministered the Dilaudid, testified that 0.5 milligrams is a "very small [dose] for an adult."13
When Cpl. Mauchin began to discuss the accident with Mauk, he noticed that Mauk was groggy and her speech was slurred and slow, but her eyes were not dilated or glassy.14 While talking to Mauk, Cpl. Mauchin also detected a moderate odor of alcoholic beverage on her breath from about two feet away.15
When Cpl. Mauchin asked Mauk what happened, she stated that she was turning left on a green light and was hit.16 Cpl Mauchin asked Mauk if she had consumed any alcohol prior to the collision and Mauk initially said "no."17 Upon being informed that he could smell an odor of alcohol on her breath, Mauk said "not recently," and then said that she had two beers at Seasons Pizza.18 Cpl. Mauchin was familiar with the area, and knew that Seasons Pizza was a few miles north of where the collision occurred.19
At this point, Cpl. Mauchin informed Mauk that he suspected that she was driving under the influence and wanted to acquire a blood sample from her.20 Cpl. Mauchin explained to Mauk that the hospital had an Authorization For SpecimenAcquisition form21 ("Consent Form") that she "needed to sign . . . in order for one of the hospital staff to withdraw blood, but that she could refuse it."22 Cpl. Mauchin told Mauk that the "alternative to refusing" was that he would obtain a search warrant.23
While Cpl. Mauchin was discussing the Consent Form with Mauk, Chris Belair, Mauk's significant other and father of her children, arrived along with their two children.24 According to Cpl. Mauchin, he and Belair discussed the situation outside of Mauk's hospital room.25 During their conversation, Cpl. Mauchin stated that he "had every intention of leaving there with a blood sample."26 Contrary to Belair's testimony, Cpl. Mauchin denied telling Belair that if Mauk did not consent, "the penalties would be higher."27
Following his conversation with Cpl. Mauchin, Belair and Mauk's children went into Mauk's hospital room and Cpl. Mauchin remained outside.28 After a few minutes, Belair stepped out of Mauk's hospital room and told Cpl. Mauchin that "she'll give you consent."29 Cpl. Mauchin then entered the room, and Mauksigned the Consent Form at 8:51 p.m.30 By signing the form, Mauk gave "permission to Christiana Care Health Services to take [blood] . . . for police purposes."31 The Consent Form provided that the test was "blood alcohol determination" and the purpose was "driving under the influence."32 In addition to Mauk, two hospital nurses signed the form as well.33 At no point in this process was Mauk handcuffed.34
After she signed the Consent Form but before her blood was drawn, Mauk asked whether the driver of the second vehicle would be giving a blood sample.35 Cpl. Mauchin responded in the negative and explained that the second driver was not suspected of driving under the influence.36 Upon hearing this, Mauk became upset and agitated.37 Cpl. Mauchin advised Mauk that he was aware of Mauk's prior DUI's and she yelled back, "they had nothing to do with this!"38 At no time during or after this conversation did Mauk withdraw her consent.39
When Nurse Fillingame was unable to draw Mauk's blood, she called a phlebotomist who successfully drew Mauk's blood at 9:10 p.m..40 Cpl. Mauchin noted that Mauk's demeanor and composure during the blood draw was the same as it had been prior to the blood draw— Mauk was "lying on the gurney and seemed relaxed."41 Nurse Fillingame testified that had Mauk not provided consent, she would not have drawn blood.42 According to Cpl. Mauchin, his interaction with Mauk at the hospital lasted approximately 35 minutes from first contact to a few minutes after the blood draw.43
After the blood draw, Cpl. Mauchin spent approximately two hours checking up on the occupants of the other vehicle. Cpl Mauchin said that the purpose of this part of his investigation was to assess the extent of their injuries and to determine their vantage point as to the events that had transpired.44 Cpl. Mauchin noted that the driver of the second vehicle was conscious, alert, and showed no signs of being under the influence of any type of alcohol or drug.45
Mauk was arrested on October 20, 2013, upon her release from the hospital.46
On a motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search or seizure, the State bears the burden of "establishing that the challenged search or seizure comported with the rights guaranteed to . . . [the defendant] by the United States Constitution, the Delaware Constitution, and Delaware Statutory law."47 "The burden of proof on a motion to suppress is proof by a preponderance of the evidence."48
Mauk filed two motions in connection with her October 20, 2013 arrest. First, Mauk filed a motion to exclude the statements she made to Cpl. Mauchin at the hospital. Mauk argues that these statements were obtained in violation of Miranda49 because she was subject to custodial interrogation but was never advised of her Miranda rights. The State argues that Mauk was not in custody at the hospital because routine accident investigation at the scene or at the hospital does not constitute custodial interrogation.
Second, Mauk moved to suppress the results of Mauk's blood testing conducted at the hospital, arguing that the blood draw was an impermissible search in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1,Sections 6 and 7 of the Delaware Constitution because there was no warrant or probable cause. Mauk argues that her consent was not voluntarily given because she was under the influence of both alcohol and pain medication at the time she signed the Consent Form and during the blood draw itself. Mauk also argues that Cpl. Mauchin coerced her into consenting to the blood draw by threatening to get a warrant if she did not consent.
Miranda warnings are only required when a suspect is both in custody and subject to interrogation by a State agent.50 A law enforcement officer becomes obligated to administer Miranda warnings "only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him in custody."51 The legal standard used to determine custody is "whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest."52 "When determining whether an interrogation has occurred in a custodial setting . . . the court must review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation by applying an objective, reasonable person standard."53
Here, the Court must examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether Mauk was subject to custodial interrogation at the hospital. This Court has held that, "[i]nvestigation at the scene immediately following an accident is considered routine, initial investigation, even where questioning occurs at the hospital."54 However, there is no per se "hospital rule" in a custody inquiry because each case must be determined on a case-by-case basis.55
In DeJesus v. State, investigating officers went to the emergency room to...
To continue reading
Request your trial