Court Opinion

ID: 9463050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:57:08.82341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:54.942683
License: Public Domain

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
This case does not involve a routine, on-the-scene investigation of a traffic accident. The defendant was held at gun point, disarmed, and handcuffed. The police questioned him in a police car, while he was still in handcuffs, without giving him the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Under these circumstances, I believe that the statements obtained by the police were not admissible at his trial.
I agree with my brothers that the police need not give the warnings specified in Miranda when they conduct a routine, on-the-street investigation of a traffic offense, even though the defendant is subsequently charged with a felony. In contrast, when a defendant is taken into custody for interrogation about the traffic offense, the Miranda warnings must be given. The need for the warnings is not determined by the nature of the offense; it is determined by the nature of the interrogation. Both the plain language of Miranda and soundly-reasoned state and federal cases sustain these propositions.
In Miranda, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use statements obtained from a custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. The Court defined custodial interrogation as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. Lest its rule be misapplied, the Court added: “Our decision is not intended to hamper the traditional function of police officers in investigating crime. . . . General on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime ... is not affected by our holding. ... In such situations the compelling atmosphere inherent in the process of in-custody interrogation is not necessarily present.” 384 U.S. at 477-478, 86 S.Ct. at 1630.
We drew the distinction between on-the-scene interrogation and custodial investigation nearly ten years ago. In United States v. Gibson, 392 F.2d 373, 376 (4th Cir. 1968), we held that a police officer need not preface a brief sidewalk interrogation about the ownership of a car with the Miranda warnings. At the same time, we cautioned: “ ‘Custodial interrogation’ certainly includes all station-house or police-car questioning initiated by the police, for there the ‘potentiality for compulsion’ is obvious.” 392 F,2d at 376.
The principles expressed in Gibson have been applied frequently by other courts. For example, faced with facts similar in many respects to those in the case at bar, the court in United States v. Hatchel, 329 F.Supp. 113, 117 (D.Mass.1971), admitted testimony about the defendant’s on-the-scene statements when he was stopped for a traffic violation. It excluded, however, the *460defendant’s subsequent statements, drawing the line between the routine investigation of a traffic offense and a custodial interrogation, as follows: “[N]o compelling atmosphere or coercive influences were brought to bear upon defendant until [the police officer] pulled his gun and arrested the defendant. When defendant was arrested, handcuffed, and put into the police car, the circumstances changed dramatically.” 329 F.Supp. at 117. Similarly, a number of other cases, involving interrogation initiated as a result of traffic offenses, determine the admissibility of the defendant’s statements by the nature of the interrogation rather than the nature of the crime. See, e. g., U.S. v. LeQuire, 424 F.2d 341, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1970); U.S. v. Chadwick, 415 F.2d 167, 173 (10th Cir. 1969); Lowe v. U.S., 407 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1969); Allen v. U.S., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 61, 390 F.2d 476, 478-79 (1968); State v. Lawson, 285 N.C. 320, 324, 204 S.E.2d 843, 846 (1974); State v. Darnell, 8 Wash.App. 627, 508 P.2d 613, 615, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1112, 94 S.Ct. 842, 38 L.Ed.2d 739 (1973).
I readily concede that several cases support the prosecution’s argument that Miranda does not extend to traffic violations regardless of the circumstances under which the interrogation takes place. I am not persuaded that we should follow these cases. They justify their position in part by emphasizing the triviality of the offense, an argument that is inapplicable to felonies. Furthermore, the three cases cited to exemplify the rejection of Miranda dealt with statements that might well have been admissible under Miranda. For this reason, their precedential value is limited. In State v. Neal, 476 S.W.2d 547, 552 (Mo.1972), the evidence was clearly admissible because the questioning was conducted first, while the defendant was sitting in his automobile, and later, while standing beside it. In State v. Macuk, 57 N.J. 1, 268 A.2d 1, 9 (1970) and State v. Bliss, 238 A.2d 848, 850 (Del.Supr.1968), each court coupled its rejection of the Miranda requirement with the observation that the admission of the defendant’s statement was probably harmless error.
Because the need for giving the Miranda warnings should be determined by the nature of the interrogation, not by the nature of the offense, I would reverse the judgment of the district court.