Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

 

Custodial Interrogation During Traffic Stops

Custodial Interrogation During Traffic Stops

Custodial Interrogation During Traffic Stops

The question of when custodial interrogation starts during traffic stops has challenged courts for many years. Choosing a definite rule as to when someone is in custody affects the timing of Miranda warnings. If a police officer waits too long to read Miranda warnings during a stop, the driver can challenge admissibility in court of any statements he makes after the stop becomes custodial but before the warnings are read.

In one of many attempts to determine when “custodial interrogation” begins, the Supreme Court considered the case of Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). In the case, a state police officer saw a driver weaving in and out of a lane. He pulled the driver over and asked him to get out of the car. The officer decided the driver would be charged and not allowed to leave after the driver could barely get out of the car. Then the officer had him perform a field sobriety test. The driver could barely stand. When asked, the driver told the officer that he had been drinking and smoking marijuana. The officer arrested the driver and took him to jail, where a blood test was taken. The police then continued questioning the driver, who made more incriminating statements. He was never given Miranda warnings.

Miranda warnings may be read after a driver is in custodial interrogation, but if he is in custody they must be read before he is questioned further about the charges. The Supreme Court concluded that the driver in Berkemer was in custodial interrogation at least starting when he was arrested, so the statements made at the jailhouse had to be excluded from use in court. However, the Court concluded that questioning during a routine traffic stop was not custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. Traffic stops are usually brief and in public, free of some of the pressures encountered in a police station.

Extended traffic stops may trigger a need for Miranda warnings. If a driver has been treated in such a way that he may as well be in custody for all practical purposes, the Court decided that Miranda warnings should be given. In Berkemer, the arresting officer did not tell the driver that the officer intended to arrest or detain him until he actually made the arrest. A reasonable person in the driver’s position would not have understood prior to the arrest that he was going to be arrested. As a result, the incriminating statements he made prior to arrest were admissible in court.

Were you arrested driving under the influence of drugs during a DUI traffic stop without receiving Miranda warnings? Seek out a DUI attorney with the know-how to tackle your case the right way from the start. Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor, now teaches other attorneys and law enforcement about sobriety testing techniques and defends Oklahoma drivers charged with DUIs. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.