The tra ffic stop and later interview at the police station w ere rec orded, a nd one videotape 1 containing both the stop and the station inter view was introduced into evidence during the hea ring on Salazar’s motion to suppress. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 07 -00 045 -CR

Aur e lia no Sa laz ar , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF B URNET COUNTY NO. M- 2101 4 , HO NORAB LE W. R. SAVAGE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Aur eliano S a laza r w a s a r r e s te d a n d c h arg ed with driving while intox icated, second of fense . After

the trial court overr

uled his motion to suppr ess, Salazar pled no contest to the char g e. The trial court sentenc ed him to one y ear ’s imprisonment, probated f or two y ear s, and to a $2 ,0 00 fi ne , p art ia lly pro bat ed. On a pp e a l, S a la zar

c on te nd s in

tw o is su e s th a t th e c ourt e rr e d in denying his motion to suppress, arguing that (1) he should have bee n rea d his war nings at the scene befor e the of

fice r aske d him whether he had bee n drinking and (2) the war nings he was given at the
scene wer e insuffic ient and he should have bee n rea d his rights a second time at the police station. We affir m the trial court’ s judgme nt of conviction. Depa rtment of Public Safety Trooper Fr anklin Randolph, I I Itestified that he stopped the ca r that Salazar wa s driving be cause the ca r had a n expired reg istration sticker. When Randolph 1See M iranda v. Arizona , 3 84 U. S. 4 36 (1 96 6); see also Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. 2 ar t
. 3 8
. 2 2 , § 2 (a ) ( W es t2 0 0 5 ) ( co d i fy i n g Miranda ). 2 asked f or Salazar’ s driver’ s license, Salazar said he did no t h av e o n e. Randolph testified that he
no tic e d th a t Sa la zar ’s sp e e c h wa s slur re d, his e y e s we re g la ssy , an d he ha d a str on g od or of a lc oh oli c bever ag e on his brea

th, all of which led Randolph to believe Salazar had been drinking . Randolph asked Sala zar to step out of the ca r and to move to the rea

r of the c ar f

or fur ther e valuation. Afte r dis c ov e ri ngin t

he ba c k s e a t a

c oo le r c on ta ini ng

c ans of be e r, tw o of

wh ic h w e re op e n a

nd c old to the touch, Randolph aske d Salazar if he had been drinking
. Salazar responde d that he had drunk f our or five be ers. Randolph then perf ormed the horizontal g aze ny stag mus ( HGN) test and conc luded that Salazar wa s impaired, plac ing him under arr est for DWI
. After handcuf fing Salazar and pla cing h i m i n t h e p o l i c e c ar , R an d o l p h r e a d S a l a z ar h i s s t a tu t o r

y Miranda rig hts, and Salazar state d that 2 he understood his r ights. At the police station, Sala zar perf ormed four sobrie ty

tests and was f

urther interviewe d by

Randolph. Randolp h asked Sala zar a ser ies of questions from a form entitled, “DWII nterviewwith L eg al Warning s,” writing Salazar’s ve rbal a nswers on the form. R andolph the n h and e d Sa la zar

the fo rm , the top of wh ic h sta te s a cr imi na l de fe nd ant’ s le g a l r ig hts , to ld h im that he had w ritten the answe rs Salazar ha d just provided, and aske d Salazar to sign it. Salazar took the form a

n d s ig n e d it qu ic k ly
. Ra

n d o lp h d id n o t r e a d Sa la za r h is r ig h ts d

u r in g th e in te r

v ie w or sobriety tests at the police station. I n his first issue, Salazar arg ues t hat because Randolph a lrea dy had a suspicion that Salazar wa s intox icated a

nd beca use Salazar wa s not free to leave the scene while beingquestioned, R an d o l p h s h o u l d

h av e r ea d

S al az ar h i s ri gh t s b ef

o re as k i n g i f h e h adb ee ndri n k i n g.3 Our a naly sis in thi s issue is cont ro l l ed s q uare ly by settled law a s stated in Sta te v. Stev enson , 9 58 S.W. 2d 82 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); see State v. W aldrop , 7 S.W .3d 836, 839-40 (T ex . Ap p . —

Au s t i n1 9 9 9 , n o p et
. ) ( ap p l y i n g Steve nson ). “[ A] tra ff ic sto p d oe s n ot c on sti tut e ‘custody ’ for Miranda purposes.” Steve nson , 9 5 8 S
. W
. 2 d at 8 2 8 (c i t i n g Be rk

e me r v . M

c Car ty , 46 8 U.S. 42 0, 43 9- 40 (1 98 4) ); see Be rkem er , 4 68 U. S. at 43 6, 43 9- 40 (“ a tr a ff ic sto p s ig nif

ic a ntl y curta ils the ‘fr eedom of action’ of the driver,” and “fe w motorists would fee l f ree either to disobey a directive t o pull over or to leave the sc ene of a tra ffic stop without being told they might do so,” bu t “ no nc oe rc ive a sp e c t of or din ary tr a ff ic sto ps pr omp ts u s to ho ld t hat pe rs on s te mpo raril y detained pur suant to such stops are not ‘in custody ’ for the purposes of Miranda ”). Courts dete rmine whether a noncustodial e vent has tra nsformed into a custodial interrog ation by looking at whether the offic er ha d probabl e ca u s e to ar rest, whe ther the of

fice r had a

subjective intent to hold the defe ndant, the def

endant’ s subjective belief as to the status of his fre edom, and whether the foc us of the investig ation had ce ntere d on the def endant. Steve nson , 9 58 S.W. 2d a t 82 6, 82 8- 29 . T ho se fac tors “ar e re levant only

to the extent that they are manifested to the suspect throug h the words and action s o f la w e n f o r c e me n t o f

f ic ia ls ; ‘ th e c u s to dy

d e te r mi n a ti o nis b a s e d

e n ti r e ly u p o no b je ctive circ umstances.’ ” Id
. at 8 2 9 (q u o t i n g Do wth itt v . S tat e , 931 S.W .2d 244, 254-55 (Te x . Crim. App. 19 96 )) ; se e Do wth itt , 931 S.W .2d at 254 (“f actor s two and four [officer’ s subjective intent and f ocus of investig ation] have bec ome irre levant except to the extent that they may be man i fe s t ed i n the words or a ctions of law e nforc ement off icials”). As in W aldrop , Salazar was not ha ndcuff ed or under arr est at the time he was a sked to s te p o ut o f t

he c ar and talk

to R and olp h. 7 S. W.3 d at 83 7, 83 9. Rand olp h k ne w that a t le a st two traff ic offe nses had be en committed, driving without a license an d expired reg istration, and4

testified that he thoug ht Salazar might have bee n dri n k i ng . Randolph conducte d a brie f inv e sti g a tio n, loo kin g ins ide the c ar a nd a sk ingSa la zar

wh e the r h e ha d c on su me d a ny a lc oh oli c bever ag es. Afte r Salazar a nswere d aff

irmatively , Randolph conducte d the HGN test a nd rea ched the
c on c lus ion

that Sa la zar wa s impa ir e d. He the n pla c e d Sa la zar un de r a rr e st a nd re a d h im h is r ig hts
. These f acts a re substantially

the same a s in W

aldrop
. See id. at 83 9-4 0. Sa la zar wa s n ot i n police custody

or subject to a c ustodial interrog ation when h e v o l untarily told Randolph he had consumed seve ral be ers. Se e id . T hu s, th e tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y de nie d Sa la zar ’s mot ion to
s u p p r e s s h is s tate me n ts ma d e to Ra n d o lp h ma d e d

u r in g th e tr a ffic stop. S ee id. We o ve rr

ule Salazar’s fir st issue.

I n his second issue, Salazar a sserts that Randolph violated ar ticle 38.22 of the c ode of cr iminal procedur e “in that he failed to ( 1) ensure that Salazar knew wha t his rights we re a

nd that Sa la zar kn ow ing ly , in te lli g e ntl y , a nd vo lun tari ly

wa ive d th os e ri g hts ” or

(2 ) inf or m Sa la zar of his statutory war nings at the station before conductingthe interview
. Arti cle 38.22 r equire s that befor e beingsubjected to a custodial interrog ation, a
c ri minal defe ndant b e inf or me d o f h is Miranda rig hts. Tex. C ode Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 38.22, §§ 2, 3 (West 2005). I t does not require that a def endant be rea d his rights multiple times at differ ent stag es of a

n arr est or interr og ation, n o r d o es it require a wr itten warningrathe r than a verba l
rec itation of his rights. See id. The videotape of Salazar’s arre st and subsequent interrog ation at the police station shows that Rand o l p h read Salazar his rig hts after informing him that he was unde r
arr est for D WI , handcuf

fing him, and placinghim in the pol ice car. Salazar told Randolph that he understood his rig hts. Thus, Randolph satisfied the req u i re m en ts of article 38.22 and wa s not5

re qu i re d t o re adS al az ar ’s ri gh t s a se co n d t i m e at t h e st at i o n o r t o as k S al az ar t o re adt h e w arn i n gs written on the DWI interview form befor e conduc ting the inter view. F urthermor e, the top of the onepa g e fo rm

tha t Sa la zar sig ne d at th e po lice statio n c on ta ins the art ic le 38 .2 2 w arn ing s and state s, “The above le g al war

nings w ere either read by me or to me. I

understand e ach of

these rig hts and ag ree to waive ( g ive up) these rig hts and answe r the following q u es t i o n s . ” At no time during the drive to the police station or the interview at the station did S alazar e ver r efe r to his rig hts or in any
w ay in d ic a te th a t h e w is h e d to r e ma in s il e n t, c o n s u lt w it h a la w y e r , o r te r mi n a te th e in te r

v ie w . We ho ld t hat Sa la zar ’s art ic le 38 .2 2 r ig hts we re no t vi olate d and that the tr ia l c ourt pr op e rl y de nie d h is motion to suppress his state ments made at the police station. Se e Ga rc ia v . S tat e , 919 S.W .2d 370, 386-87 (Te x . Crim. App. 1996) (op. on re h’g ) (suff icient war nings w hen def endant initialed
wa rn ing s and wa ive r of ri g hts and wa s ve rb a lly inf or me d o f r ig hts ); So sa v . S

tat e , 769 S.W .2d 909, 91 6 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) ( s u f f i c i e n tw ar n i n g s w h e nw ar

n i n g s t h a ts u

b s t an t i a l l y

c o mp l i e d w i th statute wer e rea d to defe ndant, who then sig ned wa iver for m). We overr

ule Salazar’s se cond issue. Havingover rul ed both of Salazar’ s issues, we af firm the trial c ourt’s judg ment of convic tion.

__________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: June 5, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh