Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Lipscomb v. State

Lipscomb v. State

372 S.E.2d 853, 188 Ga. App. 322, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 940
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 8, 1988
Docket76523
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 372 S.E.2d 853 (Lipscomb v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lipscomb v. State, 372 S.E.2d 853, 188 Ga. App. 322, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 940 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Pope, Judge.

A police officer stopped defendant for failure to dim his headlights. When the officer asked him to produce his driver’s license and proof of insurance, the police officer “observed the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath.” The officer asked defendant if he had had anything to drink that day and defendant “said he had a few.” Defendant was asked to perform routine field sobriety tests, was given an Alcosensor reading which showed positive results, and was then placed under arrest. Defendant contends that his convictions for failure to dim head lights and for DUI must be reversed because the convictions were based upon evidence gained as a result of an involuntary in-custody statement made without the giving of a Miranda warning. Held:

No Jackson-Denno hearing was requested here, nor was one formally held. However, it is clear from the testimony and from colloquy outside the presence of the jury that at the time the statements were made, defendant was detained only in a traffic stop. “Treatment of this sort cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 442 (104 SC 3138, 82 LE2d 317) (1984). Accord Mitchell v. State, 174 Ga. App. 594 (2) (330 SE2d 798) (1985); Humphrey v. State, 174 Ga. App. 165 (2) (329 SE2d 306) (1985); Chester v. State, 157 Ga. App. 191 (276 SE2d 684) (1981). Since defendant was not taken into custody for Miranda purposes until the officer arrested him shortly after he made the statements complained of here, his statements prior to the arrest were admissible against him.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Benham, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tolliver v. State
546 S.E.2d 525 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001)
Nameth v. State
505 S.E.2d 778 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
State v. Kirbabas
502 S.E.2d 314 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Knapp v. State
493 S.E.2d 583 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Trudewind v. State
480 S.E.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
State v. Pastorini
474 S.E.2d 122 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Gray v. State
476 S.E.2d 12 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Keenan v. State
436 S.E.2d 475 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1993)
Tibbs v. State
427 S.E.2d 603 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
Lankford v. State
419 S.E.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
Carroll v. State
416 S.E.2d 354 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1992)
McCall v. State
549 So. 2d 623 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1989)
Griffin v. State
381 S.E.2d 562 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
372 S.E.2d 853, 188 Ga. App. 322, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipscomb-v-state-gactapp-1988.