State of Indiana v. Jason Hubler (mem. dec.)
22A01-1706-CR-1329
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- March 26, 2016: Two adjacent collisions on Charlestown Road; Hubler’s northbound vehicle was struck when a southbound car entered the northbound lane to pass an earlier crash.
- Officer May approached Hubler at the scene, observed glassy eyes, slurred speech, unsteady balance, and a strong odor of alcohol; Hubler performed and failed HGN and attempted but could not complete other field sobriety tests due to a reported bad back.
- Officer May offered a certified chemical test under Indiana’s implied consent law; Hubler submitted; result showed an ACE of .240.
- Hubler moved to suppress evidence (officer observations and chemical test results), arguing Miranda warnings were required and that police lacked probable cause to offer the chemical test; the trial court granted suppression without specifying its grounds.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether Miranda applied and whether probable cause existed to offer the chemical test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hubler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda warnings were required before officer questioning/observations | Officer’s on-scene questions and FSTs were non-interrogative and not custodial interrogation; Miranda not required | Hubler: officer’s questions and administration of tests elicited incriminating statements/behavior; Miranda warnings required | Miranda not required: questions were general, FSTs non-testimonial; observations and test results admissible |
| Whether probable cause existed to offer chemical test | Odor of alcohol plus slurred speech, glassy eyes, unsteadiness provided probable cause; odor alone sufficient | Hubler: police lacked probable cause to demand chemical test; suppression appropriate | Probable cause existed; strong odor of alcohol alone justified offering the chemical test; suppression reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires advisement of rights)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (Miranda covers express questioning and police words/actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) (distinction between testimonial and non-testimonial conduct)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (physical evidence such as blood-alcohol tests are non-testimonial)
- Dalton v. State, 773 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (strong odor of alcohol alone can establish probable cause to offer chemical test)
- Owens v. State, 992 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for suppression orders on appeal)
- Necessary v. State, 800 N.E.2d 667 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (FSTs do not trigger Miranda)