copyright 2007 thomson delmar learning. all rights reserved. pennsylvania v. bruder 488 u.s. 9...
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.
PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER488 U.S. 9 (1988)
Case Brief
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.
PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER
• PURPOSE: Illustrates an exception to Miranda warnings.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.
PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER
• CAUSE OF ACTION: Driving under the influence (DUI).
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.
PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER
• FACTS: A motorist driving erratically and running a stop sign was stopped by police. Smelling alcohol on motorist’s breath, the officer administered a field sobriety test, which the motorist failed. He was charged with DUI. The trial court allowed statements and conduct prior to arrest without Miranda warnings. Superior Court reversed.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.
PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER
• ISSUE: Whether evidence from the field sobriety test was admissible as evidence in absence of Miranda warnings.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.
PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER
• HOLDING: Yes. Evidence was admissible.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.
PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER
• REASONING: Following Berkemer v. McCarty, the Court held that a traffic stop is not a “custodial interrogation” (which would require Miranda warnings) even where a field sobriety test is used.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.
PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER
• AFTERTHOUGHT: Many cases have addressed this issue. They can be found compiled and discussed at: 25 A.L.R.3d 1076, “Right of motorist stopped by police officers for traffic offense to be informed at that time of his federal constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona.”