Anyone arrested for a criminal offense in the U.S. is typically read a list of rights known as a Miranda warning before being taken into custody. The name stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s groundbreaking Miranda vs. Arizona ruling. If police don’t read a suspected drunk driver his or her rights prior to questioning, any information obtained may be suppressed from the evidence by a skilled Florida DUI / DWI attorney.

The exact wording of the Miranda warning was not spelled out in the Supreme Court’s decision. However, police have created a statement that is read to suspects prior to questioning.  The following statement is typically used to advise arrestees of their constitutional rights: 

“You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present now and during any future questioning.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you at no cost.” 

It’s critical that any criminal suspect about to be questioned by police is first informed of the right to remain silent.  The statement about the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the information that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court.

Drivers must also be advised that they have the right to consult with an attorney and have that lawyer present during questioning.  Police must also inform the driver that if he or she cannot afford one, a lawyer will be appointed at no cost.

Police must stop any questioning if the driver informs officers that he or she wishes to consult with a lawyer. The individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and have that individual present during any subsequent interrogation. If a driver who cannot obtain an attorney indicates that one is wanted before speaking to police, investigators must respect the decision to remain silent.

Although a Miranda warning should always be issued prior to questioning, police aren’t required to issue one merely to make an arrest. The Miranda warning is designed to protect suspects from making incriminating statements during interrogation. The only thing police need to legally arrest a person is probable cause – a reasonable belief that the individual has committed a crime. 

If police question a suspect without fist issuing a Miranda warning, the arrest itself may still be valid. However, statements made during questioning likely will be excluded.  This doesn’t include routine questions such as name, address, and date of birth. Police can also give chemical tests without issuing a Miranda warning, but drivers being tested may refuse to answer questions.

Miranda warnings apply only to communication, not physical evidence.  Police also may testify about how a statement was made without repeating the actual words. For example, if the defendant seemed disoriented or had slurred speech, the officer may testify about those facts at trial.

Miranda warning issues can arise in DUI / DWI cases when it’s difficult to pinpoint whether the driver was actually under arrest when incriminating statements were made.  Generally, statements made before an individual is placed under arrest are not subject to Miranda rules.  Pre-arrest questions are typically investigative in nature and normally occur during relatively brief traffic stops. Answers to questions such as “Where have you been?” or “Have you been drinking?” are typically admissible in a DUI / DWI case regardless of whether a Miranda warning was given.  

Any interaction between a driver and a police officer prior to a DUI / DWI arrest, such as the initial traffic stop and the performance of field sobriety tests, are not subject to Miranda restrictions. The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination only protects a driver against giving testimony against his or herself, and does not protect the accused from giving real or physical evidence.  Field-sobriety tests are physical evidence, not testimonial evidence, and do not violate the privilege against self-incrimination.