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

State v. Peters

474 S.E.2d 623, 222 Ga. App. 484, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2802, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 782
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 9, 1996
DocketA96A1086
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 474 S.E.2d 623 (State v. Peters) 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
State v. Peters, 474 S.E.2d 623, 222 Ga. App. 484, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2802, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 782 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Johnson, Judge.

Joseph D. Peters was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol when he failed field sobriety tests after having been stopped for speeding. The trial court granted Peters’ “Motion to Suppress and Motion In Limine,” excluding the test results on the ground that Officer Clayton had placed Peters under arrest but not informed him of his Miranda rights before administering the tests. The state appeals. We reverse.

“Factual and credibility determinations made by a trial judge after a suppression hearing or a motion in limine hearing to exclude evidence are accepted by appellate courts unless clearly erroneous.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) State v. Leviner, 213 Ga. App. 99 (1) (443 SE2d 688) (1994). However, “where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.” (Citations omitted.) Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319, 320 (1) (443 SE2d 474) (1994).

We accept as true the trial court’s findings that, before he administered the field sobriety tests, Officer Clayton had taken Peters’ driver’s license and stated that Peters was not free to leave. However, we do not accept the trial court’s reasoning that Miranda warnings were required because “a person is under arrest whenever his liberty to come and go as he pleases is restrained, no matter how slight such restraint may be.” A police officer may briefly detain a motorist and administer field sobriety tests that are not of a “testimonial or communicative nature” without advising the motorist of his or her rights against self-incrimination. Smith v. State, 202 Ga. App. 701, 702 (1) (415 SE2d 495) (1992). This is because “[treatment of this sort cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest.” Lankford v. State, 204 Ga. App. 405, 407 (2) (419 SE2d 498) (1992). The trial court erred in suppressing the test results.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur. *485 Decided July 9, 1996 Reconsideration denied August 14, 1996. Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Solicitor, Charles C. Flinn, Assistant Solicitor, for appellant. Peters, Roberts, Borsuk & Taylor, R. Stephen Roberts, J. M. Raffauf, for appellee.

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

Related

Hale v. State
714 S.E.2d 19 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Sanders v. State
577 S.E.2d 94 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
State v. Picot
565 S.E.2d 865 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2002)
Arce v. State
538 S.E.2d 128 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Kinman v. State
533 S.E.2d 124 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Brice v. State
529 S.E.2d 178 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
State v. Dible
502 S.E.2d 245 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Chastain v. State
498 S.E.2d 792 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
474 S.E.2d 623, 222 Ga. App. 484, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 2802, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-peters-gactapp-1996.