Opinion
11-P-187
03-22-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. MIGUEL RAMOS.
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
After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1). On appeal, he claims that the judge erred by not granting his motion to suppress the results of his field sobriety tests. We affirm.
'In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error 'but conduct an independent review of his ultimate findings and conclusions of law." Commonwealth v. Scott, 440 Mass. 642, 646 (2004), quoting from Commonwealth v. Jimenez, 438 Mass. 213, 218 (2002). The law in the Commonwealth has long been that field sobriety tests are not testimonial, and therefore require no Miranda warnings prior to their administration. See Commonwealth v. Brennan, 386 Mass. 772, 779 (1982) ('[F]ield sobriety tests do not elicit testimonial or communicative evidence and therefore do not trigger the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment [to the United States Constitution]').
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Mills, Meade & Rubin, JJ.),