Background
An officer observed the defendant's car weaving in and out of its traffic lane. The officer stopped the defendant and asked him to exit his car. The officer noticed that the defendant was having difficulty standing, and the defendant's speech was slurred and difficult to understand. The defendant could not perform a "balancing test" without falling.. The officer asked the defendant whether he had consumed any intoxicants, and the defendant admitted having drunk two beers and smoked several marijuana joints shortly before being stopped. The officer arrested the defendant and took him to the county jail, where the defendant was subjected an intoxilyzer test. The test results were negative for the presence of alcohol. The officer then resumed questioning the defendant. The defendant responded affirmatively when asked whether he had been drinking. When asked whether he was under the influence of alcohol, he said "I guess, barely." At no time was the defendant advised of his ''Miranda'' rights.''Berkemer'', 468 U.S. at 424. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress his pre- and post-arrest statements. After exhausting his state appeals, the defendant filed a motion for writ of ''habeas corpus'', but the federal district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that "Miranda warnings must be given to all individuals prior to custodial interrogation, whether the offense investigated is a felony or a misdemeanor traffic offense, and that respondent's post-arrest statements, at least, were inadmissible." The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider two issues: whether the ''Miranda'' ruling applies to defendants charged with a misdemeanor and whether an investigative detention is equivalent to ''Miranda'' custodial interrogation.Opinion of the court
# ''Miranda'' applies to custodial interrogations involving minor traffic offenses. # Routine questioning of motorists detained pursuant to traffic stops is not custodial interrogation under ''Miranda''. The ''Miranda'' rule prohibits the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation unless the police properly advise the defendant of his Fifth Amendment rights and the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waives those rights and agrees to talk to the police. The circumstances triggering the ''Miranda'' safeguards are "custody" and "interrogation." Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The defendant in the ''Berkemer'' case was interrogated twice: a pre-arrest roadside questioning and post-arrest interrogation at the jail. In neither case had the officer advised the defendant of his ''Miranda'' rights. During the post-arrest interrogation, the defendant was in custody as he had been arrested. The issue for the court was whether to create an exception to ''Miranda'' for custodial interrogations related to minor offenses. The Supreme Court declined to create such an exception, because to do so would sacrifice the certainty and clarity of the ''Miranda'' rule. The pre-arrest interrogation raised the issue of whether detention was equivalent to custody for purposes of the ''Miranda'' rule. In its opinion, the court stated: The court found that there were two significant differences between an interrogation of a person taken into custody and that of detainees. The first was the length of the detention; investigative detentions were brief and usually culminated in the issuance of a citation and release of the defendant. Second, the circumstances attendant to roadside detention were substantially less coercive and compulsive than those typically surrounding custodial interrogation. The court noted that, during most traffic stops, the actions of the officer are "exposed" to public view and that stops typically involve only one or two officers. The ''Berkemer'' ruling held that: :*A police officer can stop a vehicle if he has a reasonable articulable reason to suspect that "criminal activity is occurring."The officer may also stop if he has probable cause to believe that a crime was, is or will be committed. :*The officer may detain a person for sufficient time to conduct a reasonable investigation that either confirms or dispels his suspicions. :*The officer is not required to arrest the suspect once the officer hasReferences
External links
* {{DEFAULTSORT:Berkemer V. Mccarty History of law enforcement in the United States United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law United States Supreme Court cases 1984 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court