What Kinds of Roadside Questions Require a Miranda Warning?
Roadside questions from law enforcement – are they legal if you have not been given a Miranda warning? What kinds of questions can the police ask? Two key Supreme Court opinions in the cases of Berkemer v. McCarty and Pennsylvania v. Muniz address and (mostly) answer these common queries in the context of DUI cases.
In Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), a police officer pulled over a driver whose car was swerving in and out of its traffic lane. After the officer pulled over the driver and noticed his difficulty standing and slurred speech, the officer asked the driver if he had consumed anything intoxicating. The driver said that he drank two beers and smoked two marijuana joints. The officer arrested the driver and took him to the police station, where the driver tested negative on a breathalyzer test. The officer asked the driver if he had been drinking and if he was under the influence of alcohol. The driver said yes, he had been drinking, but said “I guess, barely” that he was under the influence. The officer never advised the driver of his Miranda rights (the right to remain silent, etc.)
The Supreme Court found that a Miranda warning should have been given once the driver was “in custody” “or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way”. Id. at 467. Unfortunately, the Court declined to described exactly when during the traffic stop and station house visit the warning should have been given. Instead, they described two possible rules: “Either a rule that Miranda applies to all traffic stops or a rule that a suspect need not be advised of his rights until he is formally placed under arrest would provide a clearer, more easily administered line. However, each of these two alternatives has drawbacks that make it unacceptable…” Id. at 468. Today, that line is still unclear, as demonstrated by the next case.
In Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990), a suspect was arrested for driving while under the influence. The police took the driver to a booking center where he answered seven questions about his name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age. The police then asked “Do you know what the date was of your sixth birthday?” and the driver was unable to answer. While performing physical sobriety tests and when he was asked to take a breathalyzer test, the driver made incriminating statements. The driver refused the breathalyzer. At this point, the police informed him for the first time of his Miranda rights. The driver was convicted of driving under the influence on the basis of audio and videotapes from the booking center.
The Supreme Court found that the questions asked of the driver constituted “custodial interrogation”, triggering the Miranda warning requirement. In particular, the Court distinguished between questioning to show what was said in response versus to show how it was said. Asking questions to get an answer, such as “Do you know what the date was of your sixth birthday?” constitutes custodial interrogation because the answer’s content “supported an inference that [the driver’s] mental faculties were impaired”. Id. at 599. However, questions asked merely to display how the driver responded – e.g. that he slurred his words when asked to read aloud – would not trigger the Miranda warning requirement. Further, the Court found that the incriminating statements the driver made during tests were voluntary and not prompted by an interrogation because the officer administering the tests gave only instructions on how to perform the tests. Id. at 602-605.
Need an attorney for DUI charges in Oklahoma? Seek out the attorney who is in court nearly every day and teaches other attorneys and law enforcement about sobriety testing techniques. Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor now using his trial experience and expert-level knowledge of DUI science to defend drivers, has the experience and the insight to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your case. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.