### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs January 5, 201 0 STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. M ICHAEL HU GO BROOKS
D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r H a rd in C o u n ty N o. 8864 C . C ree d M cG i nl ey, Judge

N o. W 2009- 00274- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 11, 2010

T h e d efe n d an t, M icha el H u g o B roo k s, w as c o n v ict ed b y a H ard in C o u n ty jury o f D U I, thir d of fens e, and w as s ent ence d by t he t r i al cour t t o 11 m ont hs , 29 days , w i t h 120 days t o s er ve i n t he county j ai l fol l ow ed by pr obat i on. T he s ol e i s s ue the def endantr ai s es i n t hi s appea l i s w h ethe r th e tr i al cour tcom m i t t ed pl ai n err orby denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . B as ed on ourr evi ew , w e conc l ude thathe has n o t sh o w n the ex i s t ence of pl ai n err ori n t he tr i al c o u rt’s r u lin g . A c c o rd in g ly , w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt. T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C i rcui t C ourt A f

f i rm ed A L AN E. G L ENN , J

. , d e l i v e r e d th e o p i n i o n o f th e Co u r t , i n wh i c h J

. C. M C L IN and C A M ILLE R. M C M UL L EN , J J

. , j oi ned. R y an B

. F eeney , S el m er, T enn essee, for the ap pell ant, M i chael H ug o B rooks. R obertE

. C ooper , J r . , A t t orneyG ener al and R eport er ; R ache l E

. W i l l i s , A s s i s t antA t t orney Ge n e r a l ; Ha n s e l J

. M c Ca d a ms , Di s tr i c tAt t o rn e yGe n e r a l ; a n d F r a n k i e K. S t a n f i l l a n d E d N. M cD ani el , A s s i s t antD i s tr i ctA t t orney s G ener al , forthe appe l l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee. OP I NI ON FACTS O n th e n ig h t o f M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , th e d e fe n d a n t w a s d riv in g o n C lifton R o a d in H a rd in C ount y w hen he l os t contr ol of hi s vehi cl e and cr as hed, w i t h hi s vehi cl e com i ng t o r es ton its sid e in th e m id d le o f th e ro a d

. S a v a n n a h P o lice O ffic e r S c o tty L o v e , w h o re sp o n d e d to t he scen e of the si ng l e-vehi cl e acci den t , ob ser ved op ened con t ai ners of beer scat t ered across t he r oadw ay and i ns i de the vehi cl e and s m el l ed a lcoh o l o n t he def endant ’ s br eath. T he def endant i ni t i al l y adm i t t ed t o t he of f i cert hathe w as t he dr i verof t he vehi cl e and thathe had-2-

notbeen w ear i ng hi s s eatbel t at t he t i m e of t he cr as h. A f t erfai l i ng f

i el d s obr i et y t es t s , t he def endantal s o adm it te d t hathe had be en dr i nki ng. T he def endantr ef

us ed t o s ubm i tt o a bl ood- al cohol t es t
. H e w as s ubs equent l y i ndi ct ed forD U I , t hi r d of fens e, vi ol at i on of

t he i m pl i ed cons entl aw , and vi ol at i on of com pl i ance w i t h t he f

i nanci al r es pons i bi l i t y l aw . T he vi ol at i on of

com pl i ance w it h t he f

i nanci al r es pons i bi l i t y l aw countof t he i ndi ct m entw as late r d ism iss e d . T h e d e fe n d a n t w a s fo u n d g u ilt y b y a ju ry o f D U I, th ird o ffe n se , an d g u ilt y a t a b e n c h tr ia l o f v io la tio n o f t h e im p lie d c o n s e n t la w . T he def endantal l eged i n hi s pr etri al m o ti ons t o s uppr es s t hat“al l evi dence s ei zed, i ncl udi ng s t at em ent s, co n fes s i ons , oradm i s s i ons , ” s houl d be s uppr es s ed bec aus e he w as unl aw f ul l y s ei zed, ques t i oned w it h o utbei ng advi s ed of hi s M i r anda r i ght s , and arr es t ed w i t houta w arr antorpr obabl e ca us e. T he onl y w i t nes s att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng w as O f f i cerL ove, w h o d esc r i bed hi s i nves t i gat i on of t he ac ci dentand s ubs equentarr es tof t he defend ant. H e t est i fi ed thatw hen he arr i ved att he scene by st and ers dir ect ed him t o a h ou se appr oxi m at el y f

i f t y feetaw ay, w her e he f ound t he defendant , w ho w as t he r egi s t er ed ow ner of t he veh icl e. H e s ai d t hathe ques t i oned the def endant , w ho adm i t t ed thathe had be en dr i vi ng t h e v e h i c l e . Be c a u s e h e s m e l l e d a l c o h o l o n t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s b r e a t h a n d o b s er ved cont ai ner s of

al cohol i n t he vehi cl e thathad bee n “opene d w i t h t he t op pul l ed bac k, ” he a sk e d th e d e fe n d a n t to p e rfo rm th re e fie ld so b rie ty tes ts. T h e d e fe n d a n t w a s u n a b le to per for m t h e t e s t s s a t i s fa c t o r i l y , a n d a t t h a t p o i n t Off i c e r Lo v e p l a c e d h i m u n d e r a r r e s tfor D U I

. O f f i cerL ove ac know l edged thatt he def endantw as notf

ree t o l eave att he t i m e he q u e stio n e d h im , sta tin g th a t h e “ w a s b e in g d e tain e d fo r in v e stig a tio n o f a m o to r v e h icle a c c id e n t.” H e fu rth e r a c k n o w led g e d th a t h e d id n o t r e a d th e d e fe n d a n t h is M ira n d a rig h ts b e fo re q u e s tio n in g h im a b o u t th e a c c id e n t. A tt he co nclusi on of the h e a rin g , th e tri al cou rtden i ed the m oti on t o sup press , con cl ud i ng t hat there w as no F ou rth A m end m ent vi olat i on i n the case. A m on g o t her things, t he cour tfound t hat t he pol i ce off i cer w as l egi t i m at el y i nves t i gat i ng a m ot orvehi cl e ac ci dent w hen he que s t i oned the def endantand thathe l aw f ul l y arr es t ed hi m forD U I fol l ow i ng t he d e fe n d a n t’ s fa ilu re to s u c c e s s fu lly c o m p le te th e fi e ld s o b ri e ty te s ts
. A N A L Y S IS T he def endantconce des t hat he fa i l ed t o f i l e a m ot i on for new tr i al butcont ends t hat th e trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to su p p re ss c o n stitu tes p lain e rro r. W e re sp e c tfu lly d is a g re e . T he doctr i ne of

pl ai n err orpr ovi des t hat“[ w ] hen neces s ar y t o do s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce, an appe l l at e cour tm ay cons i der an err or t hat has af fect ed t he s ubs t ant i al r i ght s of a par t y at any t i m e, even though t he err orw as notr ai s ed i n t he m ot i on fora new tr i al or assig n ed as e rr o r o n a p p e a l.” T e n n . R . A p p . P . 3 6 (b ). I n o rd e r fo r u s to fi n d p la in e rr o r,-3-

“(a ) th e re co rd m u st cl ea rl y estab li sh w h at oc cu rred in th e tr ial co u rt ; ( b ) a cl earand unequi vocal r ul e of l aw m us thave be en br eac hed; ( c) a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof t he ac cus ed m us thave been a dver s el y af fect ed; ( d) t he ac cus ed di d not w a iv e th e iss u e fo r ta c tica l re a so n s; a n d (e ) c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e e rro r is n e c e s s a ry to d o s u b s ta n tia l ju s tic e .” St at e v. Sm i t h, 24 S. W

. 3d 274, 282 ( T enn. 2000) ( quot i ng St at e v. A dki s s on , 8 9 9 S

. W

. 2d 626, 641- 42 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1994) )

. T he pr es ence of al l f i ve fact or s m us tbe es t abl i s hed b y th e re c o rd b e fo re w e w ill re c o g n iz e th e e x iste n c e o f p lain e rro r, an d c o m p lete con si derat i on of al l t he fact ors i s n ot nec essar y w hen i t i s clear fr om t he record t hat atl east one fact orcannotbe es t abl i s hed. I d. at283. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e p re re q u isites fo r a fin d in g o f p lain e rro r a re n o t sa tisfie d in th is case. T he defendan t argues t hat a cl ear and un equ i vo cal rul e of l aw w as breached b ecause O f f i cerL ove vi ol at ed hi s Four t h A m endm entr i ght s by conduct i ng an u n la w f ul s ear ch, s ei zur e and a r r es t
. H e poi nt s out t hat t he of f i cerdi d notobs er ve the ac ci dentand com pl ai ns abo ut the o ff

i cer’ s h aving qu est i on ed him abo ut t he acci den t and his dri nk i ng w i t ho ut f i rs t advi s i ng h i m o f

h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s . Howev e r , a s t h e St a t e p o i n t s o u t , t h e Uni t e d St at es Supr em e C our thas hel d t hata per s on w ho i s t em por ar i l y det ai ned fora tr af f i c s t op, i ncl udi ng one i nvol vi ng i nt oxi cat i on, i s not “i n cus t ody” for t he purpos es of M i r anda. See B erkem er v . M cC arty, 46 8 U

. S

. 4 2 0 , 4 4 2 , 1 0 4 S

. C t. 3 1 3 8 , 3 1 5 1 (19 8 4 ). A p p lying B erk em er, th is co u rt has concl uded that“as ki ng a m odes tnum berof ques t i ons and r eques t i ng t he per for m ance o f so b rie ty tes ts a t a lo c a tio n v isib le to p a ss in g m o to rists d o n o t, by th e m se lv e s, c o n stitu te tr e a tm e n t th a t c a n fa ir ly b e c h a ra c te ri z e d a s th e fu n c tio n a l e q u iv a le n t o f a fo rm a l a rr e s t.” St at e v. R ogerO del l G odf r ey, N o. 03C 01- 9402- C R

- 00076, 1995 W L 120464, at *3 ( T enn. C r i m . A p p . M ar. 20, 1995) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o St at e v. D avi d L ane G os s , N o. M 2 0 0 6 -01 4 6 7 -C C A -R 3 -C D , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 2 0 0 2 8 4 , at *4 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . Ju ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 ), p erm . to app ea l d en ied (T en n . F eb

. 4 , 2 0 0 8 ) (f ind ing that o ffi ce rs did n o t violate d efe n d an t’ s M i r anda r i ght s by r epea t edl y as ki ng hi m i f he had be en dr i nki ng pr i ort o pl aci ng hi m under for m al arr es t) ; St at e v. M ar y A nn M cN ei l l y, N o. M 2005- 02184- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2006 W L 3498043, at*6 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. N ov. 22, 2006) ( appl yi ng B erkem ert o con clude t hat def endantw as noti n cus t ody att he t i m e s he m ade i ncri m i nat i ng s t at em entt o of f i cer inv esti g ati n g tr affic ac cide n t)

. B ase d o n thes e c ase s, the tr ial co u rtp rop erly fo u n d that there w as no Four t h A m endm entvi ol at i on i n t he ca s e. T he def endantcannots how t hata cl earand unequi vocal r ul e of

l aw w as br eac hed, t hata s ubs t ant i al r i ghtw as af fect ed, ort hat c o n s id e ra tio n o f t h e a lle g e d e rr o r i s n e c e s s a ry to d o s u b s ta n tia l ju s tic e .-4- CO NC L US I ON W e conc l ude thatt he def endant has not s how n t hat pl ai n err or occurr ed i n t hi s cas e. A c c o rd in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rtis a ffir m e d

.

_________________________________ AL AN E

. GL E NN, J UDGE