Document: 488 U.S. 9 109 S.Ct. 205 102 L.Ed.2d 172 PENNSYLVANIAv.Thomas A. BRUDER, Jr. No. 88-161. Oct. 31, 1988. PER CURIAM. 1 Because the decision of Pennsylvania Superior Court in this case is contrary to Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 420, 104 3138, 82 317 (1984), we grant petition for a writ certiorari and reverse. 2 In early morning January 19, 1985, Officer Steve Shallis Newton Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department observed respondent Thomas Bruder driving very erratically along State Highway 252. Among other traffic violations, he ignored red light. stopped Bruder's vehicle. left his vehicle, approached Shallis, when asked registration card, returned car obtain it. Smelling alcohol observing stumbling movements, administered field sobriety tests, including asking recite alphabet. also inquired about alcohol. answered that had been drinking was returning home. failed whereupon arrested him, placed him police car, gave Miranda warnings. later convicted under influence At trial, statements conduct prior arrest were admitted into evidence. On appeal, reversed, 365 Pa.Super. 106, 528 A.2d 1385 (1987), on ground above uttered during roadside questioning elicited through custodial interrogation should have suppressed lack The Supreme denied State's appeal application. 3 supra, which involved facts strikingly similar those case, concluded "noncoercive aspect ordinary stops prompts us hold persons temporarily detained pursuant such are not 'in custody' purposes Miranda." Id., U.S., at 440, S.Ct., 3150. reasoned although stop unquestionably seizure within meaning Fourth Amendment, typically brief, unlike prolonged station house interrogation. Second, emphasized commonly occur "public view," an atmosphere far "less 'police dominated' than surrounding kinds issue itself." 438-439, 3149. motorist's "freedom action [was not] curtailed 'a degree associated with formal arrest.' " 3150 (citing California Beheler, 463 1121, 1125, 103 3517, 3520, 77 1275 (1983)). Accordingly, entitled recitation constitutional rights arrest, responses admissible.1 4 record, does contest, reveal same noncoercive aspects as detention: "a single officer ask[ing] modest number questions request[ing] perform simple balancing test location visible passing motorists." 442, 3151 (footnote omitted).2 Berkemer's rule, do involve custody Miranda, governs case.3 judgment evidence inadmissible warnings reversed. 5 It so ordered. 6 Justice MARSHALL, dissenting. 7 I agree STEVENS disturb court below, accordingly join dissent. write separately note my continuing belief it unfair litigants damaging integrity accuracy Court's decisions reverse summarily without benefit full briefing merits question decided. Rhodes Stewart, 1, 202, (1988) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Buchanan Stanships, Inc., 485 265, 269, 108 1130, 1132, 99 289 Commissioner McCoy, 484 3, 7, 217, 219, 98 (1987) dissenting). therefore dissent from today below. 8 STEVENS, whom MARSHALL joins, explains why reverses drunk-driving but explain granted certiorari. 10 440-442, 3150-3151, required unless citizen taken custody; there no bright-line rule determining detentions short constitute "the only relevant inquiry how reasonable man suspect's position would understood situation," 3151. applied statement Berkemer. As explained case: 11 "In 'custodial require make nor intend arrest. . Rather, whether individual being interrogated reasonably believes freedom restricted.' Commonwealth Meyer, Pa. 297, 307, 412 517, 521 (1980) (quoting Brown, 473 562, 570, 375 1260, 1264 (1977). 12 ruled driver accident who suspected told by wait scene until additional arrived Miranda. Meyer because defendant restricted, before received suppressed. 522." 111-112, 1385, 1387 (1987). 13 its opinion, cited opinion 517 (1980), approval. 441, n. 34, 3151, 34. Thus, appears be significant difference between law generally approve States. 14 There is, however, correctly case. divided issue. See Pa.Super., 117, A.2d, 1390 (Rowley, concurring quite appropriate prosecutor seek review Pennsylvania. That opinion. 518 635, 542 1365 (1988). highest large like obviously much too busy every arguable misapplication settled cases kind. 15 For reasons unclear me, seems welcome opportunity error-correcting function merit attention sovereign State. See, e.g., Florida Meyers, 466 380, 1852, 80 381 (1984) (per curiam ); Illinois Batchelder, 1112, 3513, 1267 (1983) ). Although "there special important reasons" correcting error committed another court, see Rule 17.1, surely suggest involves unsettled federal or confusion among state courts concerning what legal rules govern application stops. simply holds misapplied our "[t]he record." Ante, 11. scarce resources better spent addressing some general importance "beyond parties involved," Boag MacDougall, 454 364, 368, 700, 702, 70 551 (1982) (REHNQUIST, dissenting), acting "self-appointed supervisors administration justice judicial systems," 385, 1855 (STEVENS, 16 Pennsylvania—which, incidentally, petitioner asks direct certiorari—I respectfully We did announce absolute all motorist detentions, lower must vigilant "delay formally arresting motorists, subject them sustained intimidating their initial detention." 3150, (1984). Reliance referred Berkemer, inapposite. implied might properly remove result 's stops; specifically, could found safeguards over half hour, subjected while patrol car. acknowledged § relevance unusual detention. expressly disapproved, attempt extrapolate sensitivity uncommon detention circumstances any proposition exists whenever motorists think has rationale eviscerate altogether. 436-437, 3148. thus reach alphabet response testimonial hence Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 694 (1966).

Category: 0