A driver allegedly hit a fire hydrant and a parked car before making it back to his home.
Witnesses called police and officers arrived at the driver’s house shortly after the alleged incident.
The man’s wife allowed officers inside and directed them to the basement where the driver was located.
Police claim that they detected signs of intoxication while speaking with the man.
They asked him if he had been driving earlier in the day and he said no.
Police brought the man first outside and then into his garage where they conducted a field sobriety test.
During the field sobriety test, officers again ask the man if he had been driving.
Again, the man said no.
Police were unsatisfied with the man’s performance on the field sobriety test; so they placed him under arrest for OUI.
The man’s lawyer filed a motion to suppress that man’s statements to the police.
(It’s unclear from court documents why the lawyer sought to exclude the man’s statement which simply denied any wrongdoing.)
The motion was denied and the man lost at trial.
He filed an appeal challenging the denial of his motion to suppress.
Today the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion upholding the decision.
According to the Appeals Court panel,
It is settled that “a motorist who is temporarily detained after being stopped on suspicion of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is not held in custody” for purposes of Miranda. Vanhouton v. Commonwealth, 424 Mass. 327, 331 (1997). Even considering that this encounter differed from a typical motor vehicle stop because the defendant was already in his house and a number of police officers were present, we nonetheless agree that the defendant was not in custody and Miranda warnings were not required. The need for Miranda warnings “are triggered only when interrogation takes place in a custodial setting.” Commonwealth v. Becla, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 142, 145 (2009). “Custodial interrogation is ‘questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.'” Commonwealth v. Kirwan, 448 Mass. 304, 309 (2007), quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966).
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.