No Miranda needed before reading implied consent
As required by statute, a law enforcement officer read the implied consent statement to driver, before requesting a breath test, then gave driver a Miranda warning. No Miranda warning was necessary before reading the implied consent statement, because the driver could refuse without self-incrimination, and the result was not testimonial or even communicative. Circuit court’s order, granting driver’s motion to suppress, reversed.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. KRISTINA PROCTOR, Defendant-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD37599
Multiple theories supported a warrantless search
When a law enforcement officer’s experience and observations lead the officer to reasonably suspect criminal activity, the officer may conduct a warrantless stop to dispel those suspicions and may conduct a pat-down for weapons to protect the officer. And a plain feel disclosing contraband, like the distinctive texture of methamphetamine, requires no warrant for seizure. Also, consent allows a warrantless search within the scope of consent. Further, a search incident to arrest requires no warrant to prevent possession of a weapon or destruction of evidence, within the arrestee’s reach. Any of those exceptions to a constitutional warrant requirement applied to defeat defendant’s motion to suppress evidence resulting from a search of defendant. Testimony about, and documentation of, a standard Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer test was sufficient to identify the evidence as methamphetamine.
State of Missouri vs. Jason Scott Klein
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD85767