DUI Miranda Warnings
Drunk driving suspects are typically read their rights before being taken into custody, and DUI / DWI arrestees are no exception. The rights read to criminal DUI suspects in the U.S. are known as a Miranda warning.
The name Miranda stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda vs. Arizona decision. If police question a suspected drunk driver without reading his or her rights, any information obtained may be suppressed. A skilled attorney from www.NotDrunk.com can determine whether evidence in a drinking and driving case is likely to be suppressed.
The Supreme Court didn’t spell out the exact wording of the warning in its decision. However, police typically use a standard statement to satisfy the requirements of the warning. The following statement is typically used to advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present now and during any future questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you at no cost.”
The right to remain silent is considered fundamental for any criminal suspect. The defendant also must be advised that anything they choose to say can and will be used against the individual in court.
Drivers arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI must be advised of their right to consult with a lawyer, and to have that attorney present during any questioning that occurs. The driver also must be told that if he or she cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed at no cost.
If the driver decides that he or she wants to speak with a lawyer, police must stop asking questions until the attorney is present. The individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney, and to have that individual present during any subsequent questioning.
Although Miranda warnings are designed to protect the rights of criminal suspects after they’re taken into custody, police aren’t required to advise individuals of their rights before making an arrest. Miranda warnings are designed to protect criminal suspects during interrogation. The only thing police need to legally arrest a person is probable cause – a reasonable belief that the individual has committed a crime.
Even when officers interrogate a criminal suspect without reading the individual his or her rights, the arrest itself may still be legal. However, any statements made by the individual during questioning likely will be excluded as evidence. However, police are still permitted to ask routine questions such as name, address, and date of birth without reading suspects their rights. Alcohol and drug tests can also be conducted without issuing a Miranda warning, but drivers being tested may refuse to answer questions.
Miranda warnings apply only to communication, so a violation won’t result in the exclusion of physical evidence. And even if a driver’s statements are excluded because of a Miranda violation, the arresting officer may still testify about the way in which the driver made a statement, without repeating the statement itself. For example, if the defendant had slurred speech or seemed disoriented, the officer may testify about those facts.
The most common questions about Miranda rights that arise in DUI / DWI cases center on whether the driver was already under arrest when any incriminating statements were made. Statements made before a suspect is arrested are generally not subject to Miranda requirements. Answers to pre-arrest questions such as “Where have you been?” or “Have you been drinking?” are typically admissible in a DUI / DWI case regardless of whether the driver was later advised of his or her Miranda rights.
Traffic stops and field sobriety tests occur before any arrest takes place, so no Miranda warning is required. The constitutional protection against self-incrimination only applies to court testimony, so it doesn’t protect the accused from giving real or physical evidence. Field-sobriety tests are physical evidence, not testimonial evidence, and so the privilege against self-incrimination doesn’t apply.
Because pre-arrest questions are typically admissible, police are trained to obtain as much information as possible before any arrest occurs. However, some officers cross the line. If police ask questions after arrest without advising a driver of his or her Miranda rights, the driver’s responses may be inadmissible. A skilled DUI / DWI defense lawyer from www.NotDrunk.com can determine whether any statements made by a driver are likely to be suppressed.