Marlon Detric Miles v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
 

DIVISION II

MARLON DETRIC MILES

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-939

January 7, 2004

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH DIVISION

[NO. CR2002-377]

HON. JOHN B. PLEGGE,

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

John Mauzy Pittman, Judge

The appellant in this criminal case was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. From that decision, comes this appeal.

For reversal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the arresting officer to testify that appellant had given a false name when requested to identify himself when appellant was in custody and had not been given Miranda warnings. We find no error, and we affirm.

The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). It is undisputed that the familiar procedural safeguards, i.e. Miranda warnings, were not given in the present case. The record shows that appellant was a front-seat passenger in an automobile that was stopped for speeding on January 11, 2002. The driver of the automobile fled from the policeman who was attempting to stop his vehicle, and stopped only after his way was blocked by an approaching train. The policeman, Deputy Puckett, removed the three occupants from the vehicle, restrained them, and asked each of them for identification.

Appellant responded by giving a false name. Deputy Puckett was permitted to testify at trial that appellant gave him a false name, and this evidence tended to link appellant to the firearm found in the back seat of the vehicle. See Gamble v. State, 82 Ark. App. 216, 105 S.W.3d 801 (2003).

The question presented on appeal is whether Deputy Puckett was required to give appellant Miranda warnings before asking him to identify himself. We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, Deputy Puckett was not required to administer Miranda warnings to appellant before asking him to identify himself. Questions regarding an arrestee's name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age qualify as custodial interrogation, but are nonetheless admissible because the questions fall within a "routine booking question" exception that exempts from Miranda's coverage questions to secure biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990); see also United States v. Shea, 150 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 1998); compare California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) (statute requiring a driver involved in an accident to give his name does not require conduct that is testimonial in the Fifth Amendment sense).

Affirmed.

Stroud, C.J., and Bird, J., agree.