subject: Maryland Carroll County Traffic Light Sobriety Test Miranda Rights Driving Intoxicated Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] Joseph Hooper McAVOY vJoseph Hooper McAVOY v. STATE of Maryland
Court of Appeals of Maryland
January 18, 1989
McAvoy stopped in a parking lot. Trooper walked McAvoy to a point on the lot where they could both see the sign that was posted at the intersection. There, for the first time, the trooper noticed McAvoy had watery and bloodshot eyes, a flushed face, and the odor of alcohol on his breath. He failed field sobriety tests. Trooper placed him under arrest for driving while intoxicated. At 8:45 p.m., shortly after the arrest, Trooper read McAvoy a standard form DR-15, which explained McAvoy's rights and obligations under Maryland's "implied consent" law. McAvoy elected to take a chemical sobriety test, and he signed the DR-15 and submitted to a breathalyzer test. He was not advised of his Miranda rights until 9:35 p.m. Prior to trial in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, McAvoy moved to suppress evidence of the results of the field sobriety tests and the chemical sobriety test. The motion was denied and he was convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol, and sentenced. He appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.
Issues:
Whether Miranda advice must be given before the suspect is asked to perform field sobriety tests?
Whether Miranda advice must be given to a suspect under arrest before that person is asked to submit to a chemical sobriety test?
Discussion:
1) Whether Miranda advice must be given before the suspect is asked to perform field sobriety tests?
The Court held that "We accept the finding of the trial judge that McAvoy was not "in custody" within the meaning of Miranda at the time the field sobriety tests were conducted. Under the facts of the case before us, we agree that McAvoy was not in custody in the Miranda sense at the time the field sobriety tests were performed. Moreover McAvoy was not in custody when the field tests were performed renders it unnecessary for us to determine whether a request to perform field tests under such circumstances would constitute compulsion within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment nor do we consider whether the Fifth Amendment may be inapplicable on a theory that the product of the field test was real and physical in nature, rather than testimonial.
2) Whether Miranda advice must be given to a suspect under arrest before that person is asked to submit to a chemical sobriety test?
By the time McAvoy was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test, he clearly was in custody. Although that fact changes the analysis, it does not change the result. The breath taken from McAvoy was physical evidence and was not testimonial within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Additionally that a police request to take a chemical sobriety test is not an interrogation within the meaning of Miranda. Accordingly, we conclude that Miranda warnings, as such, were not required in connection with the breathalyzer test.
Conclusion:
The conviction of defendant and the refusal to suppress evidence were affirmed. Defendant was not in custody at the time he was asked to take a field sobriety test. Defendant was thus not entitled to Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings were not required prior to a chemical test since the results were physical, not testimonial, evidence. Nor did defendant have a right to counsel at the time of the chemical test.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Maryland Carroll County Traffic Light Sobriety Test Miranda Rights Driving Intoxicated Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
