Eliseo Granado, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1354141

Early morning Dec. 25, 2012: officers responded to a call about a disorderly, intoxicated, possibly armed man who left in a light-colored Cadillac DeVille; officers located a gray Cadillac DeVille nearby with Granado inside.
Officers approached, ordered Granado to show his hands; he failed to comply and reached forward, prompting officers to draw weapons, remove him from the car, handcuff him briefly, and secure him at the rear of the vehicle.
Granado’s car engine was running; he removed keys and tossed them into the back seat; officers later observed empty handgun holsters in the back seat but no weapon was seen.
Officers detected signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, flushed face, slurred speech); Granado made statements such as he had just parked and was going to sleep it off and that he wasn’t driving.
Granado refused field sobriety and preliminary breath tests; he was then arrested for driving under the influence and moved to suppress pre-Miranda statements and evidence from the continued detention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Granado’s pre-Miranda statements inadmissible because he was "in custody" when questioned?	Granado: he was effectively in custody (handcuffed, weapons drawn) so Miranda warnings were required before questioning.	Commonwealth: the encounter was a brief, safety-focused investigative stop; restraints were reasonable and not equivalent to formal arrest, so no Miranda warning required.	Court: Not in custody for Miranda; warnings not required.
Was continued detention unlawful under the Fourth Amendment once officers determined he was not armed or disorderly?	Granado: once danger/disorder concerns were dispelled officers should have released him; continued detention was an unreasonable seizure.	Commonwealth: dispatch description included possible intoxicated driver; officers developed reasonable, articulable suspicion of DUI from odor, appearance, statements, and conduct, justifying continued detention.	Court: Continued detention was supported by reasonable suspicion of DUI; suppression denied.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (requires warnings when a suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (traffic stops generally are noncustodial for Miranda purposes)
Dixon v. Commonwealth, 270 Va. 34 (handcuffs plus placement in locked police car indicate custody for Miranda)
Hasan v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 674 (presence of multiple officers and forceful tactics can render a stop custodial)
Mason v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 362 (appellate standard and reasonable-suspicion analysis for investigative stops)
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (custody for Miranda is a mixed question of law and fact)