State v. Theriault, 2
| Decision Date | 28 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CR,2 |
| Citation | 696 P.2d 718,144 Ariz. 166 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Guy M. THERIAULT, Appellee. 3518. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
On April 26, 1983, appellee was stopped by Tucson police, having been observed making repeated lane changes and having been paced at 65 m.p.h. in a 40 m.p.h. zone. When appellee got out of his vehicle, the officer noted he had difficulty steadying himself, and detected a strong odor of intoxicants on his breath. The officer put him through a series of field sobriety tests, to which appellee consented, to determine whether appellee's driving ability was impaired. When appellee performed poorly on these tests, he was arrested and taken to the station for an intoxilyzer test, which indicated a reading of .13 percent. Appellee was cited for speeding, crossing a lane divider, and driving while under the influence.
Appellee moved in city court to suppress introduction of the results of several of the field sobriety tests, and following a hearing, his motion was granted. The state appealed this to superior court, which affirmed the suppression of all but the heel-to-toe test, which it ruled could be admitted. The state does not contest the suppression of defendant's opinion of his level of intoxication. It does, on this appeal, contest the suppression of the written alphabet and numbers field sobriety tests.
Appellee contends that suppression of the written alphabet and numbers field sobriety tests is correct in that appellee's rights were violated by the failure to advise him of his Miranda rights before he consented to performing the tests. Appellee asserts that his performance on the tests amounted to self-incrimination, that he was essentially in custody and the tests amounted to statements in response to interrogation, and that his custodial detention status was confirmed by the testimony of the arresting officer that at some point prior to the completion of the tests he had formed the decision to arrest appellee, without communicating this decision to him. Appellee asserts that at that moment he was entitled to Miranda warnings and failure to give them should result in suppression of results following that point. We do not agree.
The great majority of jurisdictions have held that field...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Burhans
...State v. Taylor, 199 N.J.Super. 339, 489 A.2d 720 (1984); State v. Roadifer, 346 N.W.2d 438 (S.D., 1984); State v. Theriault, 144 Ariz. 166, 696 P.2d 718 (Ariz.App., 1984); Oxholm v. District of Columbia, 464 A.2d 113 (D.C.App., 1983); State v. Haefer, 110 Wis.2d 381, 328 N.W.2d 894 (1982);......
-
State v. Sallard
...thought processes of the subject,’ " State v. Lee , 184 Ariz. 230, 233, 908 P.2d 44, 47 (App. 1995) (quoting State v. Theriault , 144 Ariz. 166, 167, 696 P.2d 718, 719 (App. 1984) ). "A consent to a search is not the type of incriminating statement toward which the fifth amendment is direct......
-
McAvoy v. State
...This view accords with that reached by a vast majority of the courts which have considered the issue. See, e.g., State v. Theriault, 144 Ariz. 166, 696 P.2d 718 (App.1984); People v. Ramirez, 199 Colo. 367, 609 P.2d 616 (1980); Oxholm v. District of Columbia, 464 A.2d 113 (D.C.App.1983); Co......
-
Farmer v. Com.
...v. Brown, 839 F.2d 539, 541 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Williams, 704 F.2d 315, 317 (6th Cir.1983); State v. Theriault, 144 Ariz. 166, 167, 696 P.2d 718, 719 (Ct.App.1984); Walton v. City of Roanoke, 204 Va. 678, 681-82, 133 S.E.2d 315, 317-18 (1963). "Testimonial" evidence for fifth a......