Opinion ID: 501762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was Deering's Refusal Admitted in Violation of Miranda?

Text: 24 Because custodial interrogation is inherently coercive, the prosecution may not use statements made during the course of a custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates that the defendant was advised of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, and that the defendant voluntarily waived those rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 at 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Neville indicates that the Miranda analysis supplements the basic fifth amendment analysis discussed above. See Neville, 459 U.S. at 564 n. 15, 103 S.Ct. at 923 n. 15. 25 Deering argues that his refusal was used in court to prove intent to refuse to take the breathalyzer test, and that therefore it should have been excluded as evidence obtained by the police in violation of Miranda. The short answer to this question is simply to note that the supplementary protections of Miranda do not apply to nontestimonial evidence, which we have determined Deering's refusal to be. See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 761-65, 86 S.Ct. at 1831-32; see also Newhouse v. Misterly, 415 F.2d 514, 518 (9th Cir.1969) (discussing Miranda and Schmerber ). 26