CONFESSION. QUESTIONING DURING TRAFFIC STOP NOT “CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION”

A Police detective stopped the defendant late at night for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. As the man stood behind his truck, the officer noticed that he was swaying slightly.

The detective asked the defendant whether he had been drinking, and the man replied that he had drunk a couple of beers at a local club. He then asked the officer to get him a ride home, and said he would quit driving. He volunteered that he knew he was drunk.

Prior to questioning the defendant, the officer did not administer Miranda warnings, but never handcuffed or placed the defendant under arrest. Two other officers were called to the scene to administer field sobriety tests.

After the other officers arrived, they observed that the defendant’s speech was slurred and he swayed on his feet. He failed field sobriety tests, and was arrested. Miranda warnings were given at the time of the arrest.

The defendant moved to suppress all evidence relating to his arrest, including his incriminating admissions regarding his drinking. He argued that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda.

The trial judge granted the suppression motion, ruling that no statements regarding the defendant’s consumption of alcohol, where he had been, or whether he was drunk, could be admitted against him at trial. The State appealed.

Miranda v Arizona established certain protections against self-incrimination “when the individual is first subjected to police interrogation while in custody at the station or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”

The purpose of the warnings required by Miranda is to protect persons in custody from the “inherent pressures” of custodial interrogation that might cause a suspect to be coerced into making self-incriminating statements.

To assess the admissibility of self-incriminating statements elicited from a motorist during a routine traffic stop, courts are obliged to consider whether the questioning can be considered a “custodial interrogation.” Statements that are not the product of custodial interrogation do not require Miranda warnings in order to be admissible.

In Bakemer v McCarty, 468 U.S. 422, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the admissibility of statements made during roadside questioning without Miranda warnings, and determined that “persons temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not in custody for the purposes of Miranda.”

The Court was persuaded that a roadside stop usually does not constitute “custody” because of its brief nature, and warnings are not necessary due to the absence of a “police dominated” atmosphere.

In this case, the detective temporarily detained the defendant and asked him to walk to the rear of his truck. He also asked whether the defendant had been drinking.

No field sobriety tests had been administered at that point. The stop occurred on a public street, and not in a “police dominated” environment. The defendant therefore was not in custody for purposes of Miranda, and his self-incriminating responses to the officer’s questioning questions were admissible.

All of us are tempted to make rather ridiculous excuses to others. If we would consciously examine our excuses, we would discover how ridiculous most of them sound.

Someone has collected a few choice excuses that were offered to police officers in relation to automobile accidents:

“An invisible car came out of nowhere, struck my car and vanished.”

“I had been driving my car for forty years when I fell asleep at the wheel and had the accident.”

“I pulled away from the side of the road, glanced at my mother-in-law, and headed over the embankment.”

“The pedestrian had no idea which direction to go, so I ran over him.”

“The guy was all over the road; I had to swerve a number of times before I hit him.”

“Suddenly a tree was there, where no tree had been before!”

The story is told of an old man whose grandson rode a donkey while they were traveling from one city to another. The man heard some people say, “Would you look at that old man suffering on his feet while that strong young boy is totally capable of walking.”

So then the old man rode the donkey while the boy walked. And he heard some people say, “Would you look at that, a healthy man making the poor young boy suffer. Can you believe it?”

So the man and the boy both rode the donkey, and they heard some people say, “Would you look at those heavy brutes making that poor donkey suffer.” So they both got off and walked. Then they heard some people say, “Would you look at the waste? A perfectly good donkey not being used.”

Finally, the scene shifts and we see the boy walking and the old man carrying the donkey! No matter what you do, someone will always criticize it.

Sound like the Sheriff’s Office some days? Just do your best, but don’t try to carry the donkey!

Now that we at the S.O. (and millions of other people) use the internet everyday, how much do you know about how the internet came about?

In 1966, the Advanced Research Products Agency (ARPA) was given $1 million to link 4 different computers together in a network. The first message was sent on September 2, 1969 and the system immediately crashed.

In 1971, the system was called ARPANET and had 18 computers linked (primarily at universities). The MILNET (Military computer network, Department of Defense, etc.) was also started.

The first E-Mail message was sent in 1972, using the now familiar @ symbol.

In 1973, the standard protocol for the internet was invented. It was not adopted until 1983.

June, 1992, President George W. Bush signed into law the release of the internet from the government to the public domain.

In 1992, at the Cern research Institute in Switzerland, the “www” format for internet navigation was invented. There were about 50 web pages available on-line.

Also in 1992, while writing an article about the internet, librarian Jean Polly looked at the picture of a surfer on her mouse-pad and coined the term “surfing”.

In 1993, a 22 year old at the University of Illinois developed the first “web-browser” (which later became Netscape). With this ease of viewing pages now available, the internet experienced a growth of 341,000% in one year alone.