Opinion
14-P-1892
04-07-2016
COMMONWEALTH v. DAVID J. KENNY.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such 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. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), second offense, in this appeal the defendant contests only the subsequent offender finding. He argues that critical evidence used to prove his prior offense -- his date of birth and Social Security number -- was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We disagree, and affirm.
The defendant filed a generalized notice of appeal, but advances no argument with respect to his additional conviction of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license. Accordingly, we affirm that judgment without further discussion.
The defendant does not challenge the propriety of the initial traffic stop that led to his arrest. When Officer Haley asked the defendant for his driver's license and registration, the defendant replied that he was not carrying his license. Haley then asked the defendant for his Social Security number. During this initial questioning, Haley made observations that led him to decide to conduct field sobriety tests.
Miranda warnings were not required for Haley's initial on-scene questioning at the outset of the traffic stop. See Commonwealth v. Gordon, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 825, 827-828 (1999); Commonwealth v. Ka, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 137, 140 (2007). Accordingly, Haley acted properly in obtaining the defendant's Social Security number, and the Commonwealth permissibly used it to establish his prior OUI conviction.
The defendant's further contention that Miranda warnings were required before Haley asked him for his date of birth and Social Security number (again) during the booking process also misses the mark. Under the "routine booking question" exception, routine background questions during booking that are intended to establish an arrestee's identity fall outside the scope of Miranda. See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601-602 (1990); Commonwealth v. Woods, 419 Mass. 366, 372-373 (1995); Commonwealth v. Sheriff, 425 Mass. 186, 197-198 & n.13 (1997).
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Meade, Sullivan & Massing, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: April 7, 2016.