Violation of Miranda Rights—Will My Case Get Dismissed?

Miranda warnings were established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and are designed to inform individuals of their constitutional rights before they are interrogated while in police custody. The goal of Miranda warnings is to protect your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and your Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel.

The Miranda warnings include: 1) you have the right to remain silent, 2) anything you say can be used against you, 3) you have a right to have an attorney present during questioning, and 4) if you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed.

The key to whether Miranda applies is whether the accused is in custody. Determining custody is based on the level of restraint on the individual’s freedom and the purpose of the encounter.

To determine whether an individual is being detained to such a level that requires the application of Miranda warnings, you must look at the individual facts and purpose of the stop. Generally speaking, the interactions citizens have with law enforcement will fall into two types: a Terry Stop or a Custodial Interrogation.

A Terry stop is temporary, limited, and for investigative purposes (to confirm or dispel reasonable suspicion). Reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold than probable cause. Additionally, the individual is not free to leave but not yet under arrest.

Based on the law, a Terry stop should last no longer than necessary to resolve the officer’s suspicion (again, confirm or dispel). The officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. The purpose of the stop is to investigate suspicious behavior or address immediate safety concerns, such as checking if someone is armed. Officers may ask basic questions and perform a pat-down (frisk) for weapons if they suspect the person is armed and dangerous.

Roadside stops are akin to Terry stops and are deemed “temporary detentions” and do not require Miranda warnings. Courts recognize traffic stops as inherently more dangerous for officers due to the uncertainty of who is in the vehicle. As a result, officers may take additional precautions such as asking drivers to remain in the car or step out for safety reasons.

Often, a Terry stop will morph into a custodial interrogation without the accused realizing it. For example, a driver can be stopped for speeding but, while the officer is at the window, he may discover the odor of intoxicants or other evidence of DUI. The officer may ask questions regarding the cause of the odor or look for other signs of impairment without reading Miranda rights. 

There is often disagreement about how far an officer can go during this “investigative stop.” While it is true that an officer can do a broad investigation during a roadside stop, the officers questions are often phrased to illicit incriminating responses, which should require Miranda warnings. However, caselaw supports the notion that law enforcement has wide-latitude during a traffic stop to make such inquiries.

For example, it is common for an officer to ask a person stopped in the evening for speeding whether they have had anything to drink. Clearly, any affirmation of consuming alcohol could lead to an officer determining probable cause to arrest for DUI. However, since drinking alcohol is not necessarily illegal (and you could technically drive after consuming a drink or two) the courts do allow that level of questioning without Miranda warnings. 

A driver is always free to not answer the question but, in reality, we all know an officer investigating a DUI will find some other way to develop probable cause for the arrest. Additionally, if the driver answers in the affirmative, the answers will likely be used as the basis to conduct further incriminating questioning. For obvious reasons, most defense attorneys disagree with the courts interpretation that officers should be permitted to ask such incriminating questions without Miranda warnings. Unfortunately, the caselaw is long-established.

Understanding Miranda Warnings – Will Your Case Be Dismissed?

A custodial interrogation involves a significant restriction of freedom (not necessarily arrest) and law enforcement is usually seeking to elicit evidence or confessions. Miranda warnings are not required for Terry stops but mandatory for custodial interrogations to protect constitutional rights.

To rise to the level of a custodial interrogation there must be the two key factors: (1) custody: the person is not free to leave, similar to an arrest or being in a setting where a reasonable person would feel they are not free to leave, and (2) interrogation: direct questioning or its functional equivalent, including statements or actions by officers that are likely to elicit an incriminating response. When both conditions are met, the police must provide Miranda warnings before beginning the interrogation.

Scenario: An officer pulls over a driver for going 15 mph over the speed limit. The officer approaches the vehicle and observes that the driver’s eyes are bloodshot and there is an odor of alcohol coming from the car.

Law Enforcement Action: The officer asks routine investigatory questions, such as:

“Do you know why I pulled you over?”

“Have you been drinking tonight?”

“Can I see your license and registration?”

Analysis: At this point, the driver is not in custody, and these questions are part of a lawful Terry stop. Miranda warnings are not required.

Scenario: Based on the driver’s responses (e.g., admitting to having “a couple of drinks”) and physical cues like slurred speech, the officer asks the driver to step out of the car for a field sobriety test.

Law Enforcement Action: The officer administers the field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test. The results indicate impairment.

Analysis: The driver is still not in custody during the investigatory phase, as the officer is gathering evidence to determine if an arrest is warranted. Miranda warnings are still not required.

Law Enforcement Action: After failing the field sobriety tests, the officer informs the driver they are under arrest for suspicion of DUI. The driver is handcuffed and placed in the back of the patrol car. The officer then begins questioning:

“How much have you had to drink tonight?”

“Where were you coming from?”

“When was your last drink?”

Analysis: The driver is now in custody because they are under arrest and their freedom of movement is significantly restricted.

The officer’s questions about alcohol consumption and behavior are part of an interrogation intended to elicit incriminating responses. Miranda warnings are now required before the officer can lawfully continue questioning.

While the scenario above is accurate, in reality, determining when a speed stop goes from a traffic investigation to a custodial interrogation is a much more nuanced situation. In most cases, defense attorneys would argue that the officer knows there is enough evidence to establish probable cause for a DUI arrest long before the officer asks the driver to step out of the car to do field sobriety tests. Yet, in most cases, until the accused is placed under arrest and then questioned without Miranda warnings, the topic of Miranda violation remedies won’t really be entertained by a court.

Additionally, while the Miranda warnings alert you that you have a right to a lawyer, the officer need only do a reasonable job in securing a lawyer for you during the arrest/investigation process. For example, many DUI arrests occur late in the evening or early morning hours. There is supposed to be a public defender on duty to take calls should a defendant request legal counsel prior to submitting to the breathalyzer. However, on many occasions, the public defender on duty is either on the other line or won’t answer. An officer is not required to call twenty times or wait for an hour to reach a public defender. The investigation continues with or without legal counsel on whether to submit to the breathalyzer.

The truth is, if you are unsure as to whether to blow in the breathalyzer at the station and you want legal counsel, you may not have access to a lawyer at that time. In that case, if you refused to blow and did not understand that you will face a longer license suspension, there is no legal remedy that will “undo” the Department of Licensing suspension. So, while people accused of crimes are technically entitled to certain rights, the reality is that the violation of those rights or limitations of legal counsel may not make any difference in the prosecution of the case.

Many people think that if Miranda rights aren’t read, the entire case gets thrown out. That’s not true. The case can still proceed with witness testimony and physical evidence. The prosecution is valid even if Miranda warnings were not given. Basically, the case proceeds as though you were never questioned and the outcome does not change because nothing you said is being used against you.

Miranda rights only come into play if the police/prosecution intend to use your statements made during questioning against you in court. If you were not questioned or the prosecution does not need your in custody statements to prove the case against you, the lack of a Miranda warning has little effect on your case.

One of the most important Miranda rights is the right to remain silent. You cannot be forced to talk to law enforcement (there are some exceptions to this in Washington State during Terry stops and traffic stops that pertain to identifying yourself). This is a very important right because, even if you believe you are innocent, your words can be twisted and used as evidence against you. 

Unfortunately, most innocent people believe they can “explain away” a fact or event that will help the officer realize they are innocent or there are mitigating factors. The more the officer continues to interrogate, the more nervous the accused person becomes and they keep talking. A person who understands how crime is investigated would know that the officer is only listening for one or two facts that will substantiate probable cause so they can finish a report and arrest the person. Then, the officer can let a prosecutor decide if he or she got the right person. Sadly, in the vast majority of cases, a prosecutor just rubber-stamps the officer’s report so whoever the officer initially determined was the “bad guy” is what sticks.

As a result, it is critical that any person being questioned by law enforcement invoke that right to remain silent…and STAY silent. In many cases, we watch dash cam and patrol car footage of a defendant invoking their right to remain silent only to continue to run their mouth in the backseat. You can’t have it both ways! If the person arrested continues to talk and initiate a conversation with the officer after they expressed a desire to remain silent, the statements can be used against you. Remember, the officer does not have to stop talking to you if you re-initiated the conversation. So, invoke your right to remain silent and actually remain silent!

When Miranda rights are not read to a suspect in custody, the legal remedy typically focuses on excluding the suspect’s statements made during custodial interrogation from being used as evidence in court. This is known as the exclusionary rule, and it ensures that statements obtained in violation of Miranda rights cannot be admitted to prove the suspect’s guilt.

There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule that include questioning for the purpose of public safety. For example, if the officer is aware that the accused has a gun or some other weapon that could cause harm to those in the vicinity of the arrest, the officer may ask, “Where is the weapon?” and the response statement may be admissible. Additionally, if the defendant made statements during the arrest but then, at trial, tries to lie about those facts, the prosecution may be allowed to impeach the defendant with those non-mirandized statements.

To summarize, failing to read Miranda warnings does not automatically lead to the dismissal of the charges. The prosecution can still proceed with other evidence, such as physical evidence, witness testimony, or other admissible statements. However, if the suppressed statements are essential to proving guilt, their exclusion may force the prosecution to drop the charges or negotiate a more favorable resolution for the defendant.

If you or a loved one has been accused of a crime, reach out to our attorneys for guidance. We are here 7 days a week to help. (360) 792-1000

I Was Not Read Miranda Warnings