305 Ga. 498
Ga.2019Background
- Licata was stopped after driving on damaged rims; officer confirmed he had been in an accident and gave Miranda warnings shortly after contact.
- Officer asked Licata to perform field sobriety tests roadside; Licata complied and failed; he was then arrested for DUI less safe and read the implied-consent notice.
- Licata twice asked to call his attorney after arrest but was denied and refused the breath test.
- At pretrial suppression, the trial court suppressed both the field sobriety test results (finding Licata was in custody and not advised of a Paragraph XVI right against compelled incriminating acts) and evidence of his breath-test refusal (relying on his request for counsel).
- The Court of Appeals reversed suppression of both types of evidence; the Supreme Court granted certiorari, reviewed video evidence, and concluded Licata was not in custody when asked to perform the field sobriety tests.
- The Supreme Court affirmed suppression reversal as to the field sobriety tests (no Miranda warning required because not custodial), vacated the Court of Appeals' ruling on breath-test refusal and remanded in light of Elliott v. State (holding refusal evidence inadmissible).
Issues
| Issue | Licata's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda-type warnings are required before asking a custodial suspect to perform acts protected by Paragraph XVI (Georgia constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination) | Miranda-type warnings (including advice about Paragraph XVI) are required before requesting incriminating acts when the suspect is in custody | No special Miranda-type warning under Paragraph XVI is required before requesting physical acts; warnings required only if interrogation is custodial | Court did not reach the substantive question because Licata was not in custody; therefore no Miranda warning was required and field sobriety tests admissible |
| Whether suspect is entitled to advice of counsel and whether refusal to submit to a state-administered breath test is admissible | Licata argued denial of his requests to call counsel and that refusal evidence should be suppressed | State argued refusal evidence was admissible and denial of call did not require suppression | Court vacated lower-court ruling on refusal evidence and remanded for reconsideration in light of Elliott v. State (which holds refusal evidence inadmissible) |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222 (addresses when Miranda warnings are required for field sobriety tests)
- Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228 (construing Paragraph XVI and protections against compelled incriminating acts)
- Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 (holds refusal to submit to breath test is inadmissible at criminal trial)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (traffic stops generally noncustodial for Miranda purposes)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (totality-of-circumstances test for custody; Miranda not required absent custodial impairment)