Court Opinion

ID: 9647138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:24:38.656019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:36.736272
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I dissent to the expansion, again, of the O’Connell rule by adding the requirement that in all cases, henceforth, “... the motorist must be informed that his Miranda rights do not apply to chemical testing.” (Majority op., p. 256.) I see no reason for discussing Miranda rights in cases where they have not been implicated by the police mentioning them or the motorist suggesting the exercise of any Miranda rights such as wanting to speak to a lawyer.
We seem to have a penchant for continuously expanding the O’Connell rule to the point where the police are now more confused in trying to decipher what we expect than the drunken drivers whom they arrest.