355 So.3d 784
Miss. Ct. App.2023Background
- On April 18, 2018 Officer Joshua Parrot observed Kelvin Edwards pull out of Donnie’s Deli onto Nail Road around 11:00 p.m. and drove approximately 500 yards without headlights illuminated. Parrot turned around and initiated a traffic stop.
- Officer Brandon McCary responded, observed glassy/bloodshot eyes, smelled alcohol, found an open Corona bottle in the vehicle, and administered field sobriety tests; Edwards was arrested for DUI.
- At the station Edwards gave two breath samples on an Intoxilyzer 8000, producing an overall reading of .20.
- Edwards was convicted in municipal court of first-offense DUI and related violations, appealed to county court (bench trial) and was again convicted; the DeSoto County Circuit Court affirmed.
- On appeal Edwards argued: (1) Parrot lacked probable cause because officer testimony/location details were inconsistent; and (2) officers were required to inform him of his right to an independent BAC test under Miss. Code Ann. §63-11-13.
- The circuit court credited Officer Parrot’s testimony, found the observed lack of headlights at night provided probable cause to stop, and followed precedent holding there is no affirmative duty for officers to notify suspects of the statutory independent-test right.
Issues
| Issue | Edwards' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by probable cause | Parrot’s testimony was internally inconsistent and contradicted by McCary and citation locations, so probable cause to stop for driving without headlights was lacking | Parrot observed Edwards drive ~500 yards after pulling onto Nail Road without headlights at night; that observation supplies probable cause and the citation lists the violation location near Somerset | Stop was lawful; trial court credited Parrot and substantial evidence supported probable cause for the stop |
| Whether officers had an affirmative duty to inform defendant of right to independent BAC test (Miss. Code Ann. §63-11-13) | Edwards: §63-11-13 should require police to inform arrestees of ability to obtain an independent test (exigent dissipation of alcohol) | State: No statutory or precedent-based duty; defendant is presumed to know the law; failure to notify does not invalidate admissibility | No duty to inform; precedent controls — officers need not notify arrestees of statutory right to independent testing |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, [citation="517 U.S. 806"] (traffic stop reasonable where officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred)
- Martin v. State, [citation="240 So. 3d 1047"] (Miss. 2017) (officer-observed traffic violations supply probable cause to stop)
- Casey v. State, [citation="302 So. 3d 617"] (Miss. 2020) (officer observation of traffic violation gives probable cause)
- City of Jackson v. Lewis, [citation="153 So. 3d 689"] (Miss. 2014) (driving after dark without headlights is a clear law violation warranting police pursuit)
- Green v. State, [citation="710 So. 2d 862"] (Miss. 1998) (Miss. Code §63-11-13 does not impose an affirmative duty on officers to inform arrestees of independent-testing right)
- Scarborough v. Kellum, [citation="525 F.2d 931"] (5th Cir. 1976) (officer not required to advise defendant of right to obtain additional chemical tests)
- Ivy v. City of Louisville, [citation="976 So. 2d 951"] (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (court of appeals rejecting identical notice argument under §63-11-13)