Defense attorneys typically file several pretrial motions when preparing to take a DUI / DWI case to trial. One potent defense request in a drunk driving defense is a motion to suppress a driver’s statement because of a Miranda warning violation.

Miranda warnings originated with the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona. The Supreme Court’s historic Miranda decision established the precedent that criminal suspects must be advised of the right against self-incrimination and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Although the court’s ruling didn’t specify the exact wording, most Miranda warnings are similar to the following:

“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.” 

In any drunk driving case, the key Miranda warning issue is whether the defendant was actually under arrest when any incriminating statements were made. Police are not required to advise criminal suspects of their Miranda rights prior to arrest.  Pre-arrest questions are typically investigative in nature and normally occur during relatively brief traffic stops.

Police are allowed to ask questions such as “Where have you been?” “Have you been drinking?” and “How much have you had to drink?” without issuing a Miranda warning, and the answers are admissible in a DUI / DWI case because they occurred before an arrest. 

However, any statements made by the driver after an arrest is made are subject to Miranda restrictions. Statements obtained as a result of an unlawful detention, arrest, or search may be excluded.  For example, if police did not have probable cause to pull the driver over, then the individual’s admission that he had had two drinks may be suppressed. 

Even though brief questions are permitted during a traffic stop, the detention must be of short duration. If police prolong the stop without adequate reason, then the detention is no longer brief, and any statements made to police may be considered involuntary and therefore inadmissible.