|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 11, 2002 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing.� If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.� A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.� See Wis. Stat. � 808.10 and Rule 809.62.� |
|
����������� APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dunn County:� WILLIAM C. STEWART, Judge.� Affirmed.�
�1������� CANE, C.J.[1] Randall Peterson appeals from a judgment convicting him of fourth offense operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to Wis. Stat. � 346.63(1)(a).� Peterson�s appeal is based on the trial court�s order denying his motion to suppress statements he made to a police officer who had stopped to aid him at an accident scene.� Peterson contends that he was in custody and should have been advised of his Miranda[2] rights prior to any questioning.� Because Peterson was not in custody at the time of the questioning, the judgment is affirmed.
�2������� The underlying facts are undisputed.� While on routine patrol during the early morning hours, Pepin County sheriff�s deputy Joel Wener came upon an accident scene where he observed a car that had gone off the road into a yard.���� The right side of the car had sustained extensive damage and the passenger door was pushed in.� The car�s steering wheel was bent on the bottom, down and toward the engine compartment.� Wener also observed two men walking in the yard, one of whom was Peterson covered with blood.� Peterson had a severe cut to his left knee, both of his eyes were swollen and his face was covered with blood coming from his nose.� It also appeared that Peterson�s companion might be going into shock.�
�3������� Wener testified that his primary intent at this time was to ensure the safety of these two men.� Wener testified that he asked Peterson and his companion to lie down because he was not sure of the nature and extent of their injuries.� He told them to lie down while he contacted the sheriff�s department to request an ambulance.� Peterson told Wener that he was having trouble breathing because of the blood running into his throat and that he thought both his nose and jaw were broken.��� Wener testified that after he had seen the steering wheel bent down, in order to assess Peterson�s injuries and to advise the ambulance crew of the injuries, he asked Peterson if he had hit the steering wheel or the windshield with his chest.� Peterson said that he thought he had hit the steering wheel with his face.� This answer was later helpful to the authorities in determining that Peterson was driving the car.
�4������� Wener also noticed the odor of intoxicants on both men�s breath and found alcoholic beverages in the car.� Wener did not advise Peterson of his Miranda rights, and at no time did he place Peterson under arrest.� See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478 (1966).�
�5������� The circuit court found that Wener�s primary intent in having the men lie down to ask them questions was to secure their safety and assess their injuries.� Consequently, it concluded the men were not in custody and Miranda did not apply under these circumstances.� We agree.
��6������ Whether Peterson was �in custody,� requiring the officers to administer Miranda warnings before taking his statement, is a question of law which this court reviews de novo.� See State v. Buck, 210 Wis. 2d 115, 124, 565 N.W.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1997).� The police are required to administer Miranda warnings prior to conducting a �custodial interrogation� of an individual.� To determine whether an individual is �in custody� and therefore entitled to the Miranda warnings, this court must consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, �a reasonable person viewing the situation objectively would conclude that he was not free to leave but was in custody.�� State v. Koput, 142 Wis. 2d 370, 380, 418 N.W.2d 804 (1988).� Stated differently, �The test is �whether a reasonable person in the [suspect's] position would have considered himself [or herself] ... to be in custody, given the degree of restraint under the circumstances.��� State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 593, 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998) (citation omitted).
�7������� This court is satisfied that Peterson was not �in custody� when he in effect admitted that he had been driving the car just prior to the accident.� At no time did Wener place Peterson under arrest.� Wener�s sole purpose in having the men lie down was for their safety while he went to call for an ambulance.� It obviously was not for the purpose of confining Peterson in an arrest-type situation.� Wener�s questions, as the circuit court found, were again for medical reasons in assessing Peterson�s injuries and to advise the ambulance crew of the injuries.� There is simply no evidence that Peterson was �in custody� at the time he gave the statement.� See State v. Clappes, 117 Wis. 2d 277, 286, 344 N.W.2d 141 (1984) (recognizing �the majority view that questioning in hospitals is not custodial when the suspect is not under formal arrest.�).�
�8������� While it is true that Peterson was immobilized by his injury, in Clappes, our supreme court clarified that a custodial interrogation or the type of deprivation of freedom requiring Miranda warnings must be �caused or created by the authorities.�� Clappes, 117 Wis. 2d at 285.� Here, Peterson�s confinement was created by his medical condition, not by the authorities.� Therefore, because a reasonable person in Peterson�s position would not have considered himself to be in police custody, this court is satisfied that Wener was not required to administer Miranda warnings before asking Peterson about his injuries.
����������� By the Court.�Judgment affirmed.
����������� This opinion will not be published.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
�