If I’m not in police custody, then I’m free to drive off, right? Ah, there’s the rub.
Not trying to be snarky, just pointing out the inherent catch-22 of Miranda rights and the ambiguity of whether a traffic stop constitutes “police custody.” If the police response to my (hypothetical) act of going about my business would be to arrest or detain me, then I’m in police custody.
But there’s no ambiguity here. A traffic stop is not considered police custody even though you’re not “free to go” provided the length of the traffic stop is considered reasonable. This falls under the public safety exception and when you’re driving on public roads, you give up a lot of rights as a condition of use.
I understand that, but what constitutes “reasonable?” By that definition, every traffic stop for just a violation should be purely transactional. License, registration, proof of insurance. Here is why you were stopped, and here is your citation. Have a nice day and drive safely.
But from what I gather, literally no traffic stop goes like this. Every time, the police officer fishes for something else to find, either verbally or through observation. At the very moment the stop changes from citation for a traffic violation to an investigation of “anything remotely criminal,” you’re in custody, right?
The legal standard from Rogdriguez v United States is however long it takes to complete the objective of the traffic stop – which as you mentioned is typically to get license, registration, and proof of insurance. Unless there’s probable cause, the length cannot be extended. So, not quite as objective of a standard as you’re hoping for, but it’s what the SCOTUS has ruled.
“Fishing for something else to find either verbally or observation” is perfectly legal. Would you expect in a traffic stop for a police officer to not look for weapons or drugs in plain view, or to not try to ascertain if you’re driving while intoxicated? You can of course refuse to answer any potentially incriminating questions under Fifth Amendment grounds or even lie and not have it held against you, but anything that the officer can naturally see, smell, or hear is fair game for Fourth Amendment purposes.
As long as there’s no probable cause or reason to escalate the traffic stop beyond a temporary detention, then there’s no custody involved and no standard for Miranda is met. But, for a traffic stop to escalate there has to be probable cause. Things like “DWB” thankfully do not meet the legal standard for this.
This:
was an excellent read! Very accessible to a lay-person. Thanks for posting.
Unfortunately, in my experience knowing the law doesn’t mean you get just treatment, unless you have time and resources to follow something far up the judicial ladder. I have had a few experiences with unlawful treatment by police, and when I sought legal counsel they said some variation of, "Well, that officer is brother in law to the sheriff, who is tight with the judge, and they stick together, so unless you can follow this up the line a few levels, it’s better to plead no contest and get it over with.
With so many bad apples, clearly the whole damn tree is diseased.
As Jay-Z puts it: “I got a few dollars I can fight the case . . .”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
