Document: 468 U.S. 420 104 S.Ct. 3138 82 L.Ed.2d 317 Harry J. BERKEMER, Sheriff of Franklin County, Ohio, Petitionerv.Richard N. McCARTY. No. 83-710. Supreme Court the United States Argued April 18, 1984. Decided July 2, Syllabus After observing respondent's car weaving in and out a highway lane, an officer Ohio State Highway Patrol forced respondent to stop asked him get car. Upon noticing that was having difficulty standing, concluded would be charged with traffic offense not allowed leave scene, but told he taken into custody. When could perform field sobriety test without falling, if had been using intoxicants, replied consumed two beers smoked marihuana short time before. The then formally arrested drove county jail, where blood failed detect any alcohol blood. Questioning resumed, again made incriminating statements, including admission "barely" under influence alcohol. At no point during this sequence given warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694. Respondent misdemeanor law operating motor vehicle while and/or drugs, when state court denied his motion exclude various statements on asserted ground their evidence violate Fifth Amendment because informed constitutional rights prior interrogation, pleaded "no contest" convicted. conviction affirmed appeal County Appeals review, filed action Federal District for habeas corpus relief. dismissed petition, reversed, holding must all individuals custodial whether investigated is felony or offense, postarrest at least, were inadmissible. Held: 1. A person subjected interrogation entitled benefit procedural safeguards enunciated Miranda, regardless nature severity which suspected arrested. Thus, station house inadmissible since "in custody" least as moment instructed police car, time. To create exception rule arrest allegedly committing question informing substantially undermine rule's simplicity clarity introduce doctrinal complexities, particularly respect situations police, conducting interrogations, do know has committed felony. purposes ensuring coerce trick captive suspects confessing, relieving inherently compelling pressures generated setting itself, freeing courts from task scrutinizing individual cases determine, after fact, particular confessions voluntary, are implicated much in-custody questioning persons misdemeanors they felonies. Pp. 428-435. 2. roadside motorist detained pursuant routine does constitute "custodial interrogation" rule. Although ordinary curtails "freedom action" imposes some detainee answer questions, such sufficiently impair detainee's exercise privilege against self-incrimination require warned rights. usually brief, expects that, may citation, end most likely will continue way. Moreover, typical conducted public, atmosphere surrounding it less "police dominated" than kinds issue subsequent applied. However, who thereafter treatment renders practical purposes, full panoply protections Miranda. In case, initial did render custody," demonstrate between arrest, restraints comparable those associated formal arrest. arresting apparently decided soon stepped custody never communicated intention respondent. policeman's unarticulated plan bearing suspect time; only relevant inquiry how reasonable man suspect's position have understood situation. Since until arrested, admissible him. 435-442. 3. determination improper constituted "harmless error" cumulative reasons (i) presented federal below, (ii) admissions scene identical, (iii) posture case makes use harmless-error analysis especially difficult respondent, preserving objection denial pretrial evidence, elected contest prosecution's thus yet opportunity try impeach State's present own. 442-445. 716 F.2d 361 (CA 6 1983) affirmed. Alan C. Travis, Columbus, petitioner. R. William Meeks, Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents related questions: First, our decision 694 (1966), govern admissibility accused offense? Second, doctrine Miranda? 2 * A. 3 parties stipulated essential facts. See App. Pet. Cert. A-1. On evening March 31, 1980, Trooper Williams observed lane Interstate 270. following miles, vehicle. complied, noticed standing. point, "Williams [respondent] and, therefore, freedom terminated." Id., A-2. test, commonly known "balancing test." so falling. 4 While still stop, intoxicants. "he several joints marijuana before." Ibid. Respondent's speech slurred, understanding thereupon placed transported patrol Jail. 5 intoxilyzer determine concentration blood.1 whatsoever system. resumed order obtain information inclusion Alcohol Influence Report. answered affirmatively drinking. alcohol, said, "I guess, barely." next indicate form treated chemicals. section report headed "Remarks," wrote, "No ang[el] dust PCP pot. Rick McCarty." events anyone else tell right remain silent, consult attorney, attorney appointed afford one. B 7 drugs violation Rev.Code Ann. § 4511.19 (Supp.1983). Under law, first-degree punishable fine imprisonment up six months. 2929.21 (1982). Incarceration minimum three days mandatory. 4511.99 8 moved introduction insofar interrogation. trial motion, found guilty.2 He sentenced 90 80 suspended, fined $300, $100 suspended. 9 Appeals, renewed claim. Relying Court, held announced "is applicable misdemeanors," Pyle, 19 St.2d 64, 249 N.E.2d 826 (1969), cert. denied, 396 1007 (1970), rejected argument conviction. McCarty, 80AP-680 (Mar. 10, 1981). "substantial question." 81-710 (July 1, 10 writ Southern Ohio.3 "Miranda offense." McCarty Herdman, C-2-81-1118 (Dec. 11, 11 divided panel Sixth Circuit 361, 363 (1983) (emphasis original). applying principle facts distinguished before arrest.4 ruled, plainly inadmissible; "[a]t took [him] station," ensuing used 364. court's prearrest clear. It eschewed "the mere stopping triggers Miranda," ibid., expressly penultimate paragraph its opinion, "[t]he failure advise rendered inadmissible," ibid. added), suggesting uncertain status confessions.5 "Because convicted evidence," deemed necessary vacate corpus. Ibid.6 specify any, retrial. 12 We granted certiorari resolve confusion regarding applicability ruling interrogations involving minor offenses7 motorists stops.8 464 1038, 697, 79 163 (1984). II 13 provides: . shall compelled criminal witness himself. ." settled provision governs well proceedings. Malloy Hogan, 378 8, 84 1489, 1493, 653 (1964). 14 addressed problem guaranteed protected coercive can brought bear upon context held: 15 "[T]he prosecution exculpatory inculpatory, stemming [a] defendant unless demonstrates effective secure self-incrimination. By we mean initiated enforcement officers otherwise deprived significant As employed, other fully means devised inform silence assure continuous it, measures required. Prior questioning, statement make him, presence either retained appointed." 444, S.Ct., 1612 (footnote omitted). years frequently reaffirmed central established case: take ask questions enumerated above, responses cannot introduced establish guilt.9 See, e.g., Estelle Smith, 451 454, 466-467, 101 1866, 1875, 68 359 (1981); Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 297-298, 100 1682, 1687-1688, 64 297 (1980) (dictum); Orozco Texas, 394 324, 326-327, 89 1095, 1096-1097, 22 311 (1969); Mathis States, 391 3-5, 88 1503, 1504-1505, 20 381 (1968).10 17 Petitioner asks us carve foregoing principle. telling rights, petitioner argues, should him.11 agree. 18 One principal advantages being interrogated "Miranda's virtue prosecutors specificity what circumstances obtained admissible. gain specificity, benefits alike, thought outweigh burdens agencies requiring suppression trustworthy highly probative even though confession might voluntary traditional analysis." Fare Michael C., 442 707, 718, 99 2560, 2568, 61 197 (1979). proposed crucial advantage doctrine. often unaware Consider, example, reasonably common situation driver involved accident both driving intoxicants negligent vehicular homicide misdemeanors, §§ 2903.07, (Supp.1983), reckless felony, 2903.06 causing collision, these offenses committed. Indeed, depend unknowable previously similar offense12 record kind. turn happen, victim dies. unreasonable expect guesses conduct deciding interrogate suspect.13 21 Equally importantly, complexities confront accepted petitioner's proposal Byzantine. Difficult quickly spring mind: For instance, investigations seemingly sometimes escalate gradually more serious matters;14 evolution affair sort obliged give custody? What merely pretext enable (in hopes obtaining about felony) providing Miranda?15 litigation matters time-consuming disruptive enforcement. And result elaborate set rules, interlaced exceptions subtle distinctions, discriminating different interrogations.16 Neither nor defendants development. Absent justification surely unwilling seriously arguments proffered constitutes justification. first contends unnecessary questioned reason subject troubled agree dangers abuse slight context. intoxicated increasingly regarded many jurisdictions very matter.17 Especially intoxicant narcotic drug rather crime. circumstances, incentive induce incriminate himself substantial. Similar incentives crime supra, 431-432. 23 suggest there think efforts damaging admissions. More generally, doubt offenses, behave responsibly deliberately exert confess will. But same said ensure confessing,18 relieve " 'inherently pressures' 'which work individual's resist,' "19 possible free voluntary.20 Those 24 Petitioner's second expeditious absence requirement Again, unpersuaded. occasions someone rare. already accustomed giving Adherence significantly hamper investigate crimes. 25 hold therefore Miranda,21 26 implication correct Jail There Because juncture, III 27 assess self-incriminating address concerning scope Miranda: considered interrogation." urges should,22 terms applies whenever "a way," U.S., added); see id., 467, 1624.23 every advised unwarranted extension 28 acknowledged outset passengers, ignore signal one's or, once stopped, drive away permission. E.g., 4511.02 (1982).24 Certainly few feel disobey directive pull over so.25 Partly reasons, long "stopping automobile detaining occupants 'seizure' within meaning [the Fourth] Amendmen[t], purpose limited resulting detention quite brief." Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 653, 1391, 1396, 59 660 (1979) (citations 29 decline accord talismanic power phrase emphasized Fidelity requires enforced strictly, types concerns powered implicated. decide exerts 30 Two features mitigate danger induced "to speak freely," 1624. presumptively temporary brief. vast majority detentions last minutes. motorist's expectations, sees light flashing behind spend period answering waiting checks license registration, way.26 respect, incident stationhouse prolonged, aware provides interrogators answers seek. 451, 1615.27 31 feels completely mercy police. sure, aura authority armed, uniformed knowledge discretion combination, pressure respond questions. aspects offset forces. Perhaps degree. Passersby, foot cars, interaction motorist. exposure public view reduces ability unscrupulous policeman illegitimate elicit diminishes fear cooperate, abuse. fact typically confronted one policemen further mutes sense vulnerability. short, 445, 491-498, 1612, 1636-1640, applied Miranda.28 32 respects, usual analogous so-called "Terry stop," Terry 392 1868, 889 (1968), arrest.29 Fourth Amendment, held, lacks probable cause whose "observations lead suspect" committed, committing, commit crime, detain briefly30 "investigate provoke suspicion." Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873, 881, 95 2574, 2580, 45 607 (1975). 'reasonably initiation.' (quoting 29, 1884.) Typically, moderate number identity confirming dispelling officer's suspicions. respond. And, provide him,31 released.32 comparatively nonthreatening character explains suggestion opinions stops dictates similarly noncoercive aspect prompts temporarily 33 "exempt" coverage open way widespread Policemen simply delay motorists, them sustained intimidating detention. Cf. Roberti, 293 Or. 59, 95, 644 P.2d 1104, 1125 (1982) (Linde, J., dissenting) (predicting emergence own surrounded cars drawn weapons"), withdrawn rehearing, 236, 646 1341 (1982), pending, 82-315. net result, contends, threat designed protect. 34 confident affairs projected come pass. become curtailed "degree arrest." California Beheler, 463 1121, 1125, 103 3517, 3520, 77 1275 (per curiam). If Oregon Mathiason, 429 492, 495, 97 711, 714, 50 714 (1977) 35 Admittedly, adherence just recounted lower occasionally exactly Either need clearer, easily administered line. each alternatives drawbacks unacceptable. impede Nation's laws—by warn forgo doing little protect citizens' rights.33 circumvent constraints 36 Turning us, find nothing indicates indicated reject contention custody." Only elapsed arrest.34 interval temporary. situation.35 Nor support exposed stop. From aught appears stipulation facts, single modest requested simple balancing location visible passing motorists.36 Treatment fairly characterized functional equivalent 37 conclude, Consequently, IV 38 left appropriate remedy. post-arrest suppressed conclude pre-arrest admissible, reverse Appeals' judgment erroneous refusal Chapman California, 386 87 824, 705 (1967). Milton Wainwright, 407 371, 92 2174, (1972), argues "were recitations admitted arrest" Brief 25. disposition reasons. 39 harmless error courts, Appeals.37 Though, reviewing court, jurisdiction consider raised Carlson Green, 14, 17, n. 1468, 1470 (1980), generally reluctant so, Adickes S.H. Kress & Co., 398 144, 147, 1598, 1603 142 (1970).38 40 identical. Most recently drunk beer marihuana, acknowledge element convicted.39 assumes significance discern 41 Third, arises difficult.40 defendant, Rather, ruled motion.41 alleges injured back limp42 ailments accounted getting performing test; contest," chance jury. enough, basis complete parties' contentions relative importance portion presented, material affected outcome. Without suppress "was beyond doubt." 24, 828. 42 Accordingly, 43 Affirmed. 44 STEVENS, concurring part judgment. petition reads follows: 46 "Whether 'Miranda warnings' offenses." 47 Parts I, II, affirmative why Part Court's written discussing "prior arrest," ante, 435. That discussion petition. properly pass entirely case. wisely followed cardinal advance necessity it. Ashwander TVA, 288, 346, 56 466, 482, L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring). 48 Lamentably, fails follow course judicial restraint entire judiciary. reaching passed below review clear precedents majority—its appetite whetted—is driven serve delectable satiate I clear, however, matter interesting potentially important be, "broad considerations prevent determinations actually Court." Barr Matteo, 355 171, 172, 78 204, 205, 179 (1957) grows problematic is. New York Uplinger, 467 246, 251, 2332, 2334, 81 201 (1984) (STEVENS, 49 convinced abjure practice broadest grounds possible, Doe, 465 605, 619-620, 1237, 1246, 552 dissenting part); Grove City College Bell, 555, 579, 1211, 1225, 516 result); Colorado Nunez, 327-328, 1257, 1259, 338 concurring); Gouveia, 180, 193, 2292, 2300, 146 judgment); Firefighters Stotts, 561, 590-591, 2576, 2594, 483 also, University Regents Bakke, 438 265, 411-412, 98 2733, 2809-2810, 57 750 (1978) Monell Dept. Social Services, 436 658, 2018, 2047, 611 cf. Snepp 444 507, 524-525, 763, 773-774, 62 704 dissenting), join opinion. description technology Trombetta, 479, 481-482, 2528, 2530-2531, 413 2937.07 provides, pertinent part: "If plea 'no contest' words import pleading misdemeanor, judge magistrate finding guilty explanation guilt found, impose sentence accordingly." Rule Criminal Procedure 12(H) "The preclude asserting prejudicially erred evidence." stayed execution pending outcome application 80-TF-C-123915 (Franklin Mun.Ct., 28, differentiating admissions, accorded terminated" formed intent reasoned 'reasonable man' test," subjective standard, control F.2d, 362, Lowe 1397 (CA9 1969)). Judge Wellford, dissenting, observed: "As read finds neither disavowed interpretation ruling. Wellford's dissent premised "essentially repetitious" Reasoning Wellford argued error." 365. Clay Riddle, 541 456 (1976), warnings. 457. Several positions. Bliss, 238 A.2d 848, 850 (Del.1968); Dade Callahan, 259 So.2d 504, 507 (Fla.App.1971), 265 (Fla.1972); Gabrielson, 192 N.W.2d 792, 796 (Iowa 1971), 409 912, 93 239, 173 (1972); Angelo, 251 La. 250, 254-255, 203 710, 711-717 (1967); Neal, 476 S.W.2d 547, 553 (Mo.1972); Macuk, N.J. 15-16, 268 (1970). Other refused limit fashion reach Campbell Superior 106 Ariz. 542, 552, 479 685, 695 (1971); Commonwealth Brennan, Mass. 772, 775, 60, 63 (1982); Kinn, 288 Minn. 35, 178 888, 891 (1970); Lawson, 285 N.C. 320, 204 S.E.2d 843, 848 (1974); Fields, 294 404, (N.D.1980) (Miranda "more [traffic] offense[s] intoxicated"); Buchholz, St.3d 462 1222, 1226 (overruling 1007, 560, 498 misdemeanor"); Ore. 82-315; Meyer, 488 Pa. 297, 305-306, 412 517, 521 (1980); Holman Cox, 598 1331, 1333 (Utah 1979); Darnell, Wash.App. 627, 628, 508 613, 615, 414 1112, 94 842, 739 (1973). dealt wide variety ways. spectrum positions, Tellez, Ariz.App. 256, 431 691, 696 (1967) "reasonable grounds" believe offense); Newberry State, 457, 461 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) "consider[s driver] let leave"); Or., P.2d, forms motorist); People Ramirez, 199 Colo. 367, 372, 5, 609 616, 618, (en banc); 629-630, 615 (driver test); 307, A.2d, 521-522 (warnings required "reasonably believes restricted"); 1394, 1396; Sykes, 202, 205-206, 849, (1974) inapplicable thereof); Allen 129 U.S.App.D.C. 61, 63-64, 390 476, 478-479 ("[S]ome [without warnings] investigation notwithstanding brief effort screen crimes relatively mishaps"), modified, 131 358, 404 1335 (1968); arrest). Harris York, 401 222, 91 643, (1971), sanction them. careful note, jury "only defendant's] credibility guilt." 223, 644. consistent line decisions Quarles, 649, 2626, 550 presenting imminent safety, neutralize public. Once obtained, standard Not formulations consistent. points oral argument, appeared advocate solely drunken-driving charges; points, seemed favor felonies misdemeanors. suggestions suffer infirmities, differentiate among discussion. 2903.07 jurisdictions, certain convictions drunken quantum jump South Dakota, third Solem Helm, 277, 280, 4, 3001, 3005, 637 (1983). Welsh Wisconsin, 466 740, 761, 2091, 2103, 732 (WHITE, (observing "have competence determine" considering person). guesses; doubt, compliance doubted, desire reveal withhold cautious course. Schultz, F.Supp. 176 (Md.1977) (investigation erratic developed narcotics terminated charge possession sawed-off shotgun); Hatchel, 329 113 (Mass.1971) wrong one-way street yielded stolen car). Robinson, 218, 221, 470, 427 (1973); 238, 494, (POWELL, concurring) (discussing determining legitimate warrantless search narcotics). 663-664, 2636 (O'CONNOR, part). Amicus Curiae 18-21 "National Epidemic Of Impaired Drivers" it); Dakota Neville, 459 553, 558-559, 916, 920-921, 74 748 (1983); Perez Campbell, 402 637, 657, 672, 1704, 1715-1722, 233 (1971) (BLACKMUN, 299, 301, 1688-1689, 445-458, 1612-1619, (1966). Minnesota Murphy, 420, 430, 1136, 1143, 1624); Washington, 181, 187, 1814, 1819, 52 (1977). Developments Law—Confessions, Harv.L.Rev. 935, 954-984 (1966) (describing difficulties encountered preceding trying distinguish involuntary confessions). conclusively establishes voluntariness confession. colorable "compelled" despite authorities adhered urge precise nevertheless freely waived suggested indigent right, alleged assistance counsel trial, Scott Illinois, 1158, 383 prefer defer resolution attempted indisputably entitled. hesitates embrace proposition fully, advocating instead 39-40, 46. ostensibly recommend citizen's strength interrogating conversing constantly monitor available becomes sufficient cause, extremely administer. confine attention stronger argument: cross-petition, disentitled juncture assert Reliable Transfer 421 397, 401, 1708, 1711 considerations, prompt highlighted became ambiguous; cast statements. 425-426. undue strain, make. relevance warrants attention, regard guidance. Third perhaps briefed question. interpret apply strictly advanced enlarge judgment, cross-petition certiorari. Examples provisions are: Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 28-622, 28-622.01 (1976 Supp.1983-1984); Cal.Veh.Code 2800, 2800.1 (West Supp.1984); Del.Code Ann., Tit. 21, 4103 (1979); Fla.Stat. 316.1935 (Supp.1984); Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 951/2, ¶ 11-204 N.Y.Veh. Traf.Law 1102 (McKinney Nev.Rev.Stat. 484.348(1) 75 Pa.Cons.Stat. 3733(a) (1977); Wash.Rev.Code 46.61.020 frankly admits "[n]o audible safety officer. sophistic ordered step reasonabl[y] prudently liberty command." 16-17. laws governing issued citation vary significantly, Y. Kamisar, W. LaFave, Israel, Modern 402, (5th ed. 1980), specified refuses promise appear demands magistrate. representative sample provisions, 28-1053, 28-1054 (1976); Ga.Code 40-13-53 (Supp.1983); Kan.Stat.Ann. 8-2105, 8-2106 484.793, 484.795, 484.797, 484.799, 484.805 Ore.Rev.Stat. 484.353 S.D. Codified Laws 32-33-2 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., Art. 6701d, 148 (Vernon 1977); Va.Code 46.1-178 National Committee Uniform Traffic Ordinances, Vehicle Code Model Ordinance 16-203-16-206 (Supp.1979) (advocating mandatory release drivers except fail furnish satisfactory self-identification, whom disregard court"). brevity spontaneity also through subterfuge investigative techniques guard trickery—such "Mutt Jeff" routines—to suspects. 448-455, 1614-1617. develop implement sort. "Street Encounters" Constitution: Terry, Sibron, Peters, Beyond, 67 Mich.L.Rev. 39, (1968). 325, 1096, (1969) (suspect bedroom four officers); 2-3, 1503-1504, (1968) (defendant Government agent jail). No implied analogy resemble, duration atmosphere, kind authorized Terry. supported exceed bounds Nothing intended refine imposed detentions. Sharpe 712 65 (CA4 1983), granted, 1250, 3531, 837 Adams Williams, 143, 148, 1921, 1924, 612 (1972). 34, 1886 Contrast protection effected offenses. 432-434. Pa., 518-519, 522 one-half hour, accident). Beckwith 425 341, 346-347, 96 1616-1617, (1976) (" 'It compulsive content government's suspicions conducted, led requirements questioning' ") Caiello, 471, 473 (CA2 1969)); P., N.Y.2d 9-10, 286 N.Y.S.2d 225, 232, 255, 260 (an objective, reasonable-man because, unlike dependent self-serving declarations place burden anticipating frailties idiosyncracies question"). F.Supp., 180 stopped driving, persistent squad drinking smoking permission contact mother confessed shotgun). error, 6, briefing parties. mention unusual 23, chary issues petitions 21.1(a) ("Only forth included therein Court"). presumed contained provided confessions. 375-376, 2177. harmless, pursue supra. existence duly noted

Category: 0