field sobriety test in Indiana

2020Id. at 644 . [10] In our present case, the arresting officer testified that Norman had the smell of alcohol on her breath, had bloodshot watery eyes, produced slurred speech, failed the only field sobriety test given, displayed erratic and dangerous driving behavior, and refused to submit to a chemical test or the remaining field sobriety tests.

2016See, e.g., Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied; Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

2017See Datzek , 838 N.E.2d at 1159 , 1160 .

2017Com. v. Stewart, 846 A.2d 738, 742 (Pa. Ct. 2004).

2017Com. v. Stewart, 846 A.2d 738, 742 (Pa. Ct. 2004).

2016See, e.g., Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied; Ballinger v. State, 717 N.E.2d 939, 943 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

2016O’Banion v. State, 789 N.E.2d 516, 518 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). 2 .

2014Officer Klonne testified that he attempted to administer a field-sobriety test but Smith refused to cooperate, stating, “I’m not going to take these tests.” Transcript at 18. 6 enforcement official’s rightful exercise of duties.” Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 1993).

2014See Sellmer v. State, 842 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. 2006) (finding the defendant was in custody where an officer repeatedly asked the defendant about her suspected criminal 8 activity, told the defendant it was in her best interest to cooperate, and did not answer truthfully when the defendant asked about her rights); Crocker v. State, 989 N.E.2d 812, 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (observing that, although the defendant was not physically restrained, the officer had a high degree of control over the environment, the officer required the defendant to sit in the officer’s car, the officer employed subterfuge,

2014Being stopped for a traffic violation, asked to present a license, asked to perform a field sobriety test, and 6 asked for consent to search a car is “nothing more than a conventional traffic stop” and “cannot fairly be characterized as the functional equivalent of formal arrest.” Meredith, 906 N.E.2d at 874 (quotation omitted).

2014See Sellmer v. State, 842 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. 2006) (finding the defendant was in custody where an officer repeatedly asked the defendant about her suspected criminal 8 activity, told the defendant it was in her best interest to cooperate, and did not answer truthfully when the defendant asked about her rights); Crocker v. State, 989 N.E.2d 812, 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (observing that, although the defendant was not physically restrained, the officer had a high degree of control over the environment, the officer required the defendant to sit in the officer’s car, the officer employed subterfuge,

2014See Sellmer v. State, 842 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. 2006) (finding the defendant was in custody where an officer repeatedly asked the defendant about her suspected criminal 8 activity, told the defendant it was in her best interest to cooperate, and did not answer truthfully when the defendant asked about her rights); Crocker v. State, 989 N.E.2d 812, 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (observing that, although the defendant was not physically restrained, the officer had a high degree of control over the environment, the officer required the defendant to sit in the officer’s car, the officer employed subterfuge,

2013However, we observe that his conviction for Operating a Vehicle with an Alcohol Concentration Equivalent Between 0.08 and 0.15 is based on an Alcohol Concentration Equivalent number, not on the results of a field sobriety test. 10 App. 2008 ) (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Huber, 540 N.E.2d 140, 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), trans. denied).

1994See Zakhi v. State (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 683, 686 (to establish adequate "refusal," arresting officer must inform the accused of the consequences of refusal to take the test); Gibbs v. State (1983), Ind.App., 444 N.E.2d 893, 895 , reh'g denied (driver who would not take a field sobriety test or a breathalyzer test did not "knowingly refuse to submit" to a chemical test because she was not properly informed of the implied consent law and of the consequences of refusal to submit) 1 Steward was not properly offered a chemical test.

1988See Warner v. State (1986), Ind.App., 497 N.E.2d 259, 263 (defendant successfully performed field sobriety test, no proof of slurred speech or impaired thought processes, thus no impaired driving ability).

1988See Warner v. State (1986), Ind. App., 497 N.E.2d 259, 263 (defendant successfully performed field sobriety test, no proof of slurred speech or impaired thought processes, thus no impaired driving ability).