State v. Padidham

The defendant was not in custody when the alco-sensor test was administered so it was not necessary to read his Miranda rights to him before administration of the test.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Jyothiswar Padidham was charged with driving under the influence DUI and speeding. He moved to suppress certain evidence, including the result of an alco-sensor test administered during the traffic stop and the results of an Intoxilyzer 5000 test administered in jail. The trial court granted the motion, and the state appeals. We reverse. The facts relevant to the motion to suppress are undisputed. On February 12, 2009, a police officer stopped Padidham’s car for speeding. When the officer approached the car, he detected an odor of alcohol and noticed that Padidham’s eyes were bloodshot. At the officer’s request, Padidham got out of his car and submitted to several field sobriety tests. The officer contacted another officer to bring an alco-sensor device to the scene. While waiting for the other officer to arrive, he told Padidham to return to his Padidham’s car because of the weather. The officer told Padidham that he had stopped him for speeding, that he was going to write him a ticket, and that he thought Padidham was too intoxicated to drive and was going to verify that. About eight to ten minutes later, when the second officer arrived, Padidham provided a breath sample; it showed the presence of alcohol. The officer then placed Padidham under arrest for DUI, handcuffed him and placed him in the police car. At that point, the officer read Padidham the Georgia Implied Consent Notice, which advised him of, among other things, his right to undergo additional chemical tests at his own expense and from personnel of his own choosing;1 at the suppression hearing, the officer did not testify whether or when he advised Padidham of his Miranda rights.

At the jail, at about 2:11 a. m., officers gave Padidham a breath test using the Intoxilyzer 5000, which yielded two results 0.129 and 0.126. Padidham was not informed of the test results or given a copy of the test results until 10:00 a.m, as he was leaving the jail.

State v. Padidham

The defendant was not in custody when the alco-sensor test was administered so it was not necessary to read his Miranda rights to him before administration of the test.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report