Berkemer v. McCarty

Last updated
Berkemer v. McCarty
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 28, 1984
Decided July 2, 1984
Full case nameBerkemer, Sheriff of Franklin County, Ohio v. McCarty
Citations468 U.S. 420 ( more )
104 S. Ct. 3138; 82 L. Ed. 2d 317
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted; conviction upheld by Supreme Court of Ohio due to lack of substantial appellate question. State v. McCarty, No. 81-710 (July 1, 1981); State habeas corpus petition denied, McCarty v. Herdman, No. C-2-81-1118 (Dec. 11, 1981); Federal habeas corpus petition granted, McCarty v. Herdman, 716 F.2d 361, 363 (1983)
Holding
A person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in Miranda, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he is suspected or for which he was arrested.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityMarshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor
ConcurrenceStevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV
Superseded by
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (in part)

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court that ruled that a person in police custody following a misdemeanor traffic offense was entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment pursuant to the decision in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Previously, some courts had been applying Miranda only to serious offenses.

Contents

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. [1]

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. [1]

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. [2]

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress his pre- and post-arrest statements. [2] After exhausting his state appeals, the defendant filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus, [3] 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

  1. Miranda applies to custodial interrogations involving minor traffic offenses.
  2. 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. [4]

The Supreme Court declined to create such an exception, because to do so would sacrifice the certainty and clarity of the Miranda rule. [5] The pre-arrest interrogation raised the issue of whether detention was equivalent to custody for purposes of the Miranda rule. [6] In its opinion, the court stated:

The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of the Miranda rule. Although an ordinary traffic stop curtails the "freedom of action" of the detained motorist and imposes some pressures on the detainee to answer questions, such pressures do not sufficiently impair the detainee's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights. A traffic stop is usually brief, and the motorist expects that, while he may be given a citation, in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way... However, if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him "in custody" for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda.

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. [7] 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. [8] 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." [9]
  • 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 has probable cause. The officer may delay the arrest for purposes of conducting a noncustodial interrogation.
  • The officer may interrogate the suspect without advising him of his Miranda rights.

Related Research Articles

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "The father of Miranda."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arrest</span> Law enforcement term

An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody, usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be questioned further and/or charged. An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system, sometimes it is also done after a court warrant for the arrest.

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ernesto Miranda</span> American criminal and subject of a United States Supreme Court case

Ernesto Arturo Miranda was an American criminal and laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no allegation that their names could have caused an incrimination.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Specifically, the decision held that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when questioning someone even though the officer lacks probable cause to arrest the person, so long as the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The court also ruled that the police officer may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is "armed and presently dangerous." This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts," and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement, "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another [person] in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof"..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stop and identify statutes</span> US state laws allowing police to require identification of those suspected of a crime

"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of committing a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, the person is not required to identify themself, even in these states.

McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991), held that the right to counsel secured by the Sixth Amendment and the right to counsel protected by Miranda v. Arizona are separate and distinct, such that invoking one does not implicitly invoke the other.

Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from further searching a vehicle which was stopped for a minor traffic offense once the officer has written a citation for the offense.

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.

Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983), applied the rule first announced in Edwards v. Arizona (1981) and clarified the manner in which a suspect may waive his right under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to have counsel present during interrogation by the police.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation. In a decision written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that once an accused individual has claimed a right to counsel at a plea hearing or other court proceeding, a waiver of that right during later police questioning would be invalid unless the accused individual initiated the communication.

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that once a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, police must cease custodial interrogation. Re-interrogation is only permissible once defendant's counsel has been made available to him, or he himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Statements obtained in violation of this rule are a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.

Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "interrogation" for the purposes of Miranda warnings. Under Miranda v. Arizona, police are forbidden from interrogating a suspect once he has asserted his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. In Innis, the court held that interrogation is not just direct questioning but also its "functional equivalent"; namely, "any words or actions on the part of the police ... that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response."

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands their right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware that they have the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the right.

Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a murder conviction notwithstanding a challenge that the evidence upon which guilt was based was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The court held that in view of the station-house detention upon probable cause, the very limited intrusion of scraping the defendant's fingernails for blood and other material, undertaken to preserve highly evanescent evidence, did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985), was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified how long police are permitted to stop vehicles as part of an investigatory stop before it violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 423 (1984).
  2. 1 2 Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 424.
  3. ↑ Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 425.
  4. ↑ Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 429.
  5. ↑ Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 430–432.
  6. ↑ Detention is a fourth amendment concept. A detention is a temporary seizure of a person for purposes of investigation. A person who is detained is not free to leave. However, a temporary constraint on one's freedom of movement falls short of fifth amendment custody. The fourth amendment analog to custody is arrest. Note that a person who has been detained has the right to remain silent and decline to answer questions. Berkemer holds that the police are not required to follow the Miranda procedures before questioning the suspect. (The Supreme Court has upheld a law that required a person to give his name when requested by a law enforcement officer)
  7. ↑ "In short, the atmosphere surrounding an ordinary traffic stop is substantially less "police dominated" than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda itself ..." Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 438-39.
  8. ↑ Given the brevity and openness of roadside detention the opportunity and effectiveness of psychological ploys and stratagems is reduced.
  9. ↑ The officer may also stop if he has probable cause to believe that a crime was, is or will be committed.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.