Berkemer v. McCarty
Headline: Miranda warnings must be given to anyone arrested for a traffic misdemeanor, while routine roadside questioning during brief traffic stops is not treated as custodial and may remain admissible.
Holding: A person arrested for a traffic misdemeanor must receive Miranda warnings, but ordinary brief roadside traffic stops are not Miranda custody, so prearrest roadside statements are usually admissible.
- Requires Miranda warnings for anyone arrested, even for minor traffic offenses.
- Allows police to question drivers at roadside without Miranda during ordinary brief stops.
- Suppresses postarrest statements if warnings were not given before stationhouse questioning.
Summary
Background
A state trooper stopped a motorist for weaving on the highway, had him step out, and asked him to perform a balancing test. The driver admitted drinking beer and smoking marijuana at the scene. He was then formally arrested, taken to the county jail, given an alcohol test that showed no alcohol, and questioned again without being told he had the right to remain silent or to have a lawyer.
Reasoning
The Court answered two related questions. First, it held that the Miranda rule — telling a person in custody about the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer — applies to anyone subjected to custodial interrogation, even when the charge is a misdemeanor traffic offense. Second, the Court explained that an ordinary, brief traffic stop does not automatically create the kind of custody Miranda protects against because stops are usually short, public, and less dominated by police. Applying those principles, the Court ruled that the driver’s statements made after formal arrest at the station should have been suppressed, but the prearrest statements at the roadside were not taken in custody and were admissible.
Real world impact
Police must give Miranda warnings to suspects once their freedom is curtailed to the degree associated with formal arrest, regardless of whether the charge is a minor traffic offense. At the same time, officers can usually ask brief identification and safety questions at the roadside without giving Miranda warnings, unless the detention becomes the practical equivalent of an arrest.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens joined the judgment but warned the Court should not have decided the broader roadside-custody question unnecessary to the case; he did not join the part reaching that issue.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?