Miranda in a Chester County DUI

Frequently, people ask if they must be given Miranda warnings during a Chester County DUI.  First -- understand this -- Miranda warnings are only required if the police are going to use what you said against you.  This also has to be done in a "custodial detention".  Thus, at a routine traffic stop, simple questions are not part of a custodial detention.  

With that being said, here's a review of some cases regarding Miranda:

Remember the standard, as outlined in Pennsylvania v. Bruder from 1998 (a U.S. Supreme Court Case).  Miranda warnings are required when detaining a suspect on the side of the road and if the suspect is actually placed under arrest or when the questioning of the suspect is so long or coercive to approximate the atmosphere of a station house interrogation.  Strangely, however, the court held that the results of a field test were not testimonial in nature and did not require any warnings, as outlined in Commonwealth v. Kloch from 1974.  

Commonwealth v. Hayes from 1996 states that Miranda Warnings are not required prior to field sobriety tests at a sobriety checkpoint.  However, suppression was required when a motorist suspected of DUI was placed in a police car and was not free to leave.  This case is Commonwealth v. Turner from 2000.  In this case, it makes sense because the general standard is whether a person feels free to leave.    

More Cases for Miranda and DUI

Any Chester County DUI lawyer or even a Bucks County criminal lawyer will tell you that if it is an emergency situation, statements made by a motorist who was being treated by a State Trooper is not an illegal custodial interrogation.  This can be found in Commonwealth v. Perry from 1998. Moreover, the court has held that routine questioning of an injured and intoxicated motorist while the motorist is being treated at a hospital is not tantamount to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings (Commonwealth v. Fento in 1984).  The appellate courts in Pennsylvania have further followed the Bruder holding to permit a "few questions" and to allow performance of field tests in a public area, as outlined in Commonwealth v. Toanone from 1989.  Finally, the courts have determined that the roadside questioning at an accident scene does not inhibit a motorist's freedom of movement so as to require Miranda warnings, as outlined in Commonwealth v. Proctor from 1995.