Lebrun v. State, 339 S.E.2d 227 (Ga. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Lebrun v. State, 339 S.E.2d 227 (Ga. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“stop does not constitute ... a custodial situation.”
61 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Hammond (gactapp, 2012-02-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Hammond (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
stop does not constitute ... a custodial situation.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Phillips v. State
Ga. · 2010 · confidence medium
There was no error.” Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Escobar v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Adams and Doyle, JJ., concur. 1 OCGA § 16-13-31 (e). 2 Daugherty v. State, 283 Ga. App. 664, 665 ( 642 SE2d 345 ) (2007). 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966). 4 State v. Lucas, 265 Ga. App. 242, 243-244 (2) ( 593 SE2d 707 ) (2004). 5 Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986). 6 State v. Folsom, 285 Ga. 11, 13 (1) ( 673 SE2d 210 ) (2009). 7 McDougal v. State, 277 Ga. 493, 497 (1) (A) ( 591 SE2d 788 ) (2004). 8 Clark v. State, 289 Ga. App. 884, 886 (2) ( 658 SE2d 372 ) (2008). 9 Patten v. State, 275 Ga. App. 574, 575 (1) ( 621 SE2d 550 ) (200…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fluellen v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
“When a violator is placed in custody or under arrest at a traffic stop the protection of Miranda arises; however, roadside questioning at a routine stop does not constitute such a custodial situation.” (Citation omitted.) Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Razor v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Blackburn, P. J., and Miller, J., concur. 1 See Valentine v. State, 229 Ga. App. 791 (1) ( 495 SE2d 116 ) (1997). 2 See id. at 791 (2). 3 See Hunt v. State, 247 Ga. App. 464, 466 (1) ( 542 SE2d 591 ) (2001). 4 McNeece v. State, 246 Ga. App. 720, 722 (2) ( 541 SE2d 696 ) (2000). 5 Id. 6 State v. Hall, 235 Ga. App. 412, 414 ( 509 SE2d 701 ) (1998). 7 State v. Aguirre, 229 Ga. App. 736 ( 494 SE2d 576 ) (1997). 8 See Patel v. State, 240 Ga. App. 178, 179 ( 522 SE2d 760 ) (1999). 9 See Payne v. State, 244 Ga. App. 734, 735 (3) ( 536 SE2d 791 ) (2000). 10 See generally Swearingen v. State, 255 Ga. A…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Coe
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sledge v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Lebrun v. State,^ 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986); Metheny v. State, 197 Ga. App. 882, 884 (1) (a) ( 400 SE2d 25 ) (1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court, in Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986), held that “[w]hen a violator is placed in custody or under arrest at a traffic stop the protection of Miranda arises; however, roadside questioning at a routine stop does not constitute a custodial situation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Knox v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986); Crum v. State, 194 Ga. App. 271, 272 ( 390 SE2d 295 ) (1990); Conley v. State, 181 Ga. App. 375, 376 (2) ( 352 SE2d 394 ) (1986); Wilson v. State, 173 Ga. App. 805, 806 (1) ( 328 SE2d 418 ) (1985). [In the case sub judice, defendant had not yet been formally arrested when he gave his incriminating statement.] Because defendant was not in custody, but was merely temporarily detained, the State was not required to furnish defendant’s statement concerning [his admission that he had smoked marijuana *92 that night].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McClendon v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting both his initial statement that he had been drinking and his subsequent statement that he had stopped because he was too intoxicated to drive any further, as he had not made an intelligent and knowing waiver of his Miranda rights. (a) “When a violator is placed in custody or under arrest at a traffic stop the protection of Miranda arises; however, roadside questioning at a routine stop does not constitute such a custodial situation.” Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ); compare Dixon v. State, 196 Ga. App. 15, 18 (8a)…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lastohkein v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Generally speaking, “roadside questioning at a routine stop does not constitute a custodial situation.” Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986); Crum v. State, 194 Ga. App. 271, 272 ( 390 SE2d 295 ) (1990); Conley v. State, 181 Ga. App. 375, 376 (2) ( 352 SE2d 394 ) (1986); Wilson v. State, 173 Ga. App. 805, 806 (1) ( 328 SE2d 418 ) (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dixon v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Stanley, supra at (5); Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986); Wilson v. State, 173 Ga. App. 805, 806 (1) ( 328 SE2d 418 ) (1985). (b) Ramsey enumerates as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for a directed verdict.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stanley v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crum v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Held: “When a violator is placed in custody or under arrest at a traffic stop the protection of Miranda arises; however, roadside questioning at a routine stop does not constitute such a custodial situation. [Cit.]” LeBrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Griffin v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hughes (4×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
“When a violator is placed in custody or under arrest at a traffic stop the protection of Miranda arises; however, roadside questioning at a routine stop does not constitute such a custodial situation. [Cit.]” Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Fricks
Ga. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
LeBrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ); Steward v. State, 182 Ga. App. 659, 660 (2) ( 356 SE2d 890 ); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420 (104 SC 3138, 82 LE2d 317).
discussed Cited "see" State v. O'DONNELL (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lebrun v. State, 255 Ga. 406, 407 (3) ( 339 SE2d 227 ) (1986). 2.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Payne v. Fontenot (2×)
M.D. La. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also LeBrun v. State of Georgia, 255 Ga. 406 , 339 S.E.2d 227, 228 (1986); Wells v. Malloy, 402 F.Supp. 856, 860 (D.Vt.1975); Quetawki v. Prentice, 303 F.Supp. 737, 739 (D.N.M.1968).
Lebrun
v.
the State
42886.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Feb 12, 1986.
339 S.E.2d 227
Marcel Lebrun, pro se., Bruce D. Hornbuckle, for appellee.
Clarke.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 85%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Georgia (1)
Clarke, Justice.

Appellant, Marcel Lebrun, was convicted in the State Court of Cobb County for the offenses of driving without a license, driving without a tag and operating a motor vehicle while wearing a device which impairs hearing. He appeals to this court contending that the law requiring a license to drive is unconstitutional. We find his conviction to be valid and affirm.

Lebrun was stopped by Cobb County police officers who observed him driving with headphones and without a valid license tag. After being stopped and asked for his license, Lebrun informed the officer he was traveling as a matter of right. When a check revealed that Lebrun had an expired license, no tag or insurance he was placed under arrest.

1. Lebrun contends that the license requirement, OCGA § 40-5-20, infringes his right of locomotion as a common law freeman exercising his right to travel on public ways. We have stated that the right to travel by operating a motor vehicle on the roads of this state is a “qualified right” which a citizen exercises by obtaining a license from the state. Johnston v. State, 236 Ga. 370 (223 SE2d 808) (1976). Under the police power and for the protection of the public, it is constitutionally permissible for the state to impose reasonable conditions to qualify for a license. Dennis v. State, 226 Ga. 341 (175 SE2d 17) (1970). Appellant does not allege or show any unreasonable conditions, but argues that to require any license is too hard of a burden for a freeman to bear. We disagree and find no constitutional violation in the fact that the state requires a license to drive.

2. We also find no error in the trial court’s denial of Lebrun’s motion for counsel not a member of the State Bar of Georgia. Indi-gency was not an issue. The trial court informed Lebrun at a pre-trial hearing that he could hire any member of the Georgia bar and that[*407] the court would allow an appearance by the member of a bar of another state pro hac vice. While an accused has a right to representation by an attorney and to represent himself, there is no right to be represented by a non-lawyer third party and we hold there was no error in the denial of Lebrun’s motion.

Decided February 12, 1986. Marcel Lebrun, pro se. Bruce D. Hornbuckle, for appellee.

3. We also reject appellant’s claim that his conviction was invalid because the arresting officers did not advise him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694) (1966). When a violator is placed in custody or under arrest at a traffic stop the protection of Miranda arises; however, roadside questioning at a routine stop does not constitute such a custodial situation. Berkemer v. McCarty,_U. S--(104 SC 3138, 82 LE2d 317) (1984). Any statements made by Lebrun were made in response to routine roadside questioning. After his arrest no statement was taken. There was no error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.