Opinion
11-P-1235
12-10-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. TYSON J. ROSE.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
A State trooper pulled the defendant over after noticing him driving erratically on Route 18 in New Bedford. Upon approaching the vehicle, the trooper observed that the defendant was disheveled and appeared 'dazed.' The trooper asked what was going on, and the defendant replied that he did not have a driver's license, and that he had just left a 'booze cruise' in Providence. The trooper then asked how much the defendant had to drink, to which the defendant responded, 'I left the booze cruise, I wasn't supposed to drive, I got stuck driving.' After a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty of driving with a suspended license and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Two other guilty findings were placed on file. He appeals. The defendant now argues that the latter statement should have been suppressed because it was not preceded by Miranda warnings. However, Miranda warnings are only required prior to custodial interrogation. Commonwealth v. Mejia, 461 Mass. 384, 389-390 (2012). A motorist who has been temporarily detained on suspicion of driving while intoxicated generally is not deemed to be in 'custody,' and police may take preliminary investigative steps without providing Miranda warnings. See Vanhouton v. Commonwealth, 424 Mass. 327, 331 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 834 (1997). Although the defendant's initial admission to driving without a license might have established probable cause to arrest him, it did not change the nature of the encounter in such a way as to convert the traffic stop into a custodial interrogation. See generally Commonwealth v. Sneed, 440 Mass. 216, 220 (2003) (outlining factors relevant to determining whether a suspect was in custody at the time of an interrogation). There was no error.
Contrary to the defendant's suggestion, these statements along with the trooper's observations of the defendant's erratic driving, appearance, and behavior after being pulled over (which included not only slurred speech and an 'overwhelming odor' of alcohol on the defendant's breath, but also the defendant's inability to stand or walk unassisted when he exited the vehicle) were plainly sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction. Compare, e.g., Commonwealth v. Shabo, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 923, 924 (1999).
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Grasso, Vuono & Milkey, JJ.),