Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Berkemer v. McCarty

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFifth AmendmentMirandatraffic stopcustodyroutine questioningMiranda warningscustodial interrogation

Facts

A state trooper stopped respondent after observing his car weaving on the interstate and asked him to get out of the car. At the scene, respondent failed a balancing test and, in response to questioning, admitted he had consumed two beers and smoked several joints of marijuana; he had not been given Miranda warnings. The trooper then formally arrested respondent, took him to jail, and continued questioning him, where respondent stated he was under the influence and wrote on a report that there was no angel dust or PCP in the marijuana. At no point before or during questioning did anyone advise respondent of his rights to remain silent or to counsel.

Issue

Does Miranda govern custodial interrogation of a suspect arrested for a misdemeanor traffic offense? Does routine roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a traffic stop itself constitute custodial interrogation for Miranda purposes?

Rule

A person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to Miranda safeguards regardless of the nature or severity of the suspected offense. But a person temporarily detained pursuant to an ordinary traffic stop is not, without more, "in custody" for Miranda purposes; Miranda applies once the suspect's freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest, judged objectively from the perspective of a reasonable person in the suspect's position.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Officer Nina Flores arrested Devon Pike for a city-code hit-and-run classified as a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. After handcuffing Devon and placing him in the patrol car, she asked whether he knew he had struck the parked motorcycle; Devon said yes, but no warnings had been given.

If the prosecution offers Devon's statement at trial, how should the court rule?

Explanation. Miranda safeguards apply whenever a suspect is subjected to custodial interrogation, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense. The majority rejected any misdemeanor or traffic-offense exception because such a distinction would undermine Miranda's clarity and be difficult for police and courts to administer. Since Devon was under arrest and questioned without warnings, the statement should be suppressed.