State v. Bragg
48 A.3d 769
Me.2012Background
- Bragg drove off a rural Rockport road; Ford encountered the scene during patrol.
- Ford detected alcohol odor on Bragg and observed slurred speech while handling insurance information.
- Bragg performed field sobriety tests (alphabet and counting) and showed unsteady demeanor before arrest.
- Bragg was transported to the Camden Police Station for an intoxilyzer test; BAC was 0.13%.
- Bragg moved to suppress statements at the scene and at the station, arguing lack of Miranda warnings; court denied pretrial suppression.
- Trial resulted in a guilty verdict for operating under the influence, Class D; fines and license suspension were imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements at the accident scene were admissible without Miranda warnings | Bragg was in custody for Fifth Amendment purposes | Ford conducted a brief Terry stop, not custody | No custody for Miranda; statements admissible |
| Whether statements at the police station required Miranda warnings | Bragg was in custody and questioned about evidence | Statements not interrogation; evidence was factual | Miranda warnings not required for the statements in question |
| Whether the sobriety alphabet/counting tests were interrogation or testimonial | Tests constituted interrogation | Tests are non-testimonial or not interrogation | Tests are non-testimonial; not interrogation for Fifth Amendment purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkermer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (custody inquiry for Miranda; Terry stop framework)
- Donatelli, 2010 ME 43 (Me. 2010) (detention scope; Terry stop characteristics)
- Pinkham, 565 A.2d 318 (Me. 1989) (community caretaking; brief detention)
- Gulick, 2000 ME 170 (Me. 2000) (detention vs. arrest distinction)
- Prescott, 2012 ME 96 (Me. 2012) (custody analysis at accident scene; Prescott distinguished)
- Brann, 1999 ME 113 (Me. 1999) (preponderance; Miranda warning requirement when in custody)
- Millay, 2001 ME 177 (Me. 2001) (field sobriety tests are non-testimonial)
- Caputo v. Nelson, 455 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006) (not all police statements about evidence/gcharges qualify as interrogation)
- Innis v. Rhode Island, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (definition of interrogation; functional equivalent)
- Dominique, 2008 ME 180 (Me. 2008) (interrogation scope for Miranda includes words/actions likely to elicit)