945 N.E.2d 748
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Officer Miller stopped Cohee for a broken license-plate light and observed red, watery eyes, slurred speech, and strong odor of alcohol.
- Cohee failed multiple field sobriety tests and a breath test, and was arrested for public intoxication.
- Officers offered a blood draw under Indiana's Implied Consent statute; Cohee invoked that he wanted a lawyer.
- He was told he was not yet entitled to counsel, was asked to consent to the blood draw, and eventually consented; BAC was 0.236%.
- State charged Cohee with operating while intoxicated; Cohee moved to suppress; trial court denied; interlocutory appeal granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda or counsel rights apply before a chemical test | Cohee argues Miranda and Pirtle require reading rights before blood draw. | State contends Miranda does not apply to noncommunicative blood tests; Pirtle does not extend to chemical testing. | Miranda and Pirtle do not apply; suppression denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood test as noncommunicative evidence; not compelled testimony)
- Davis v. State, 174 Ind.App. 433, 367 N.E.2d 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977) (5th Amendment not implicated by noncommunicative physical evidence)
- Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975) (right to counsel does not attach before chemical testing under Implied Consent)
- Dalton v. State, 773 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (no right to consult counsel before deciding to submit to chemical test under Implied Consent)
- White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408 (Ind.2002) (interrogation concept does not urge Miranda warning before noncommunicative conduct)
- Ham v. State, 826 N.E.2d 640 (Ind.2005) (refusal to take a test is not necessarily evidence of intoxication)