With the speed limit laws changing, the new statewide ban on hand-held cellphones while driving, and holiday drinking leading to DUIs, traffic stops are on many people’s minds. Most adults have been or will be pulled over by the police at one point in their lives. It may be because the driver had legitimately broken one of the many traffic laws that are very easy to break. It may be because the driver was driving suspiciously, and the police merely wanted to investigate further for possible DUI. The truth is that police need only a minimal pretense to perform a traffic stop. But this raises a question: do drivers need to be mirandized before their statements can be used against them should they be charged with a crime?
The answer is no. Unless someone is arrested, the police do not have to read a stopped citizen their Miranda rights. But why? A traffic stop is an arrest, is it not? As it turns out, forcing the police to read Miranda rights to someone who has been pulled over runs counter to the intent of Miranda, and it mischaracterizes the nature of a traffic stop. If a person is taken into custody either at the scene or later during the encounter, then Miranda warnings must be given. Miranda rights goes into effect in custodial interrogation (questioning by law enforcement officers after someone is taken into custody).
Miranda v. Arizona
Until 1966, there were severe problems with the way some police forces went about interrogating suspects. Under the law, suspects did have a right to silence and a right to an attorney, but police were under no obligation to inform them of these rights. Further, the suspect could still be questioned after an attorney was requested or the right to silence invoked. This sort of pressure inherent to custodial interrogation gave rise, in 1966, to the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The ruling made it mandatory for police to inform an arrestee of their rights to silence and an attorney before their statements could be used in court. It also reaffirmed the exclusionary rule, in which testimony and evidence procured in violation of Miranda could not be used against a suspect at trial.
Terry v. Ohio
Then why is a police officer not required to mirandize drivers at a traffic stop? This comes down to the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio. The police may stop someone if they believe that the person has recently, is in the process of, or is about to commit a crime. The stop must be short in duration, but the police officer can ask questions and search a person briefly if there is reasonable suspicion that they are armed. They do not need a warrant, and they do not need to read mirandize. A traffic stop is considered a “Terry stop,” as they have come to be known. Anything said by the driver will be used against them, Miranda warnings or not.
Contact an Illinois Criminal Defense Attorney
The police can pull anyone over for the merest infraction, such as a rolling stop at a stop sign, or going a single mile over the speed limit. If this happens, the police’s job is to collect evidence of crime, and they are counting on you to be ignorant of your rights. An experienced Illinois criminal lawyer can challenge the stop, the method used to obtain statements or evidence, and the eventual arrest. If you have been arrested, contact the Law Offices of Thomas Glasgow, Ltd. at 847.577.8700.