Commonwealth v. H.Q. – Hingham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN SUPPRESSES INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS HIS CLIENT MADE TO POLICE.

Police responded to the scene of a single car crash where a vehicle was 300 feet off the road, rolled over, and overturned in an embankment. At the scene were the 18 year-old defendant, her father, and stepmother. The officer questioned the defendant’s father who stated that his daughter was the driver. The officer then questioned the defendant who admitted to being the driver. The officer observed that the defendant smelled of alcohol. The officer observed that the defendant was injured and requested an ambulance. The defendant was placed in a stretcher and loaded in the back of the ambulance. Inside the ambulance, the officer proceeded to question the defendant about her consumption of alcohol. The officer did not read the defendant her Miranda warnings. The defendant made incriminating statements to the officer where she admitted to consuming alcohol. Based, in large part on the defendant’s incriminating statements, the officer charged the defendant with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to suppress the incriminating statements his client made to the police officer inside the ambulance. Attorney Noonan argued that the officer failed to read the defendant her Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are necessary when one is subject to “custodial interrogation.” Custodial interrogation is questioning by law enforcement officers while a person is in custody or deprived of his or her freedom in any significant way. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan proved that the statements his client made to the police officer inside the ambulance were the product of “custodial interrogation.” As a result, all incriminating statements made by the defendant to the police officer inside the ambulance were suppressed from evidence.