Chapter 15: Defending Against A DUI - Suppressing A Confession Or A Statement

Just like with a motion to suppress a search, the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you waived your rights. Your waiver of your Miranda rights must be made voluntarily after being made fully aware of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon that right. Thus, this is why when an officer reads you your Miranda rights the officer must inform you that anything you say may be used against you in court.

When must Miranda rights be given?

An officer does not need to mirandize you after pulling you over for suspicion of DUI or when you are conducting field sobriety tests. In fact, field sobriety tests are considered by the courts to be nontestimonial, which is not subject to suppression for a failure to mirandize.

There are two requirements to proving that you were entitled to be advised of your Miranda rights: (1) that you were in custody; and (2) that you were being interrogated. If both conditions are met, the officer’s failure to mirandize you makes any statements you made subject to suppression.

(1) Custody requirement

Your lawyer should focus on the facts specific to your case to prove that you were in custody any time that you made any statements against your interest or any admissions.

You are “in custody” when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in your position would consider himself or herself deprived of freedom of movement to a degree associated with a formal arrest. For example, if the police officer retains your driver’s license during the traffic stop then for Miranda purposes you are considered in custody because no reasonable person would believe that he or she could simply terminate the encounter by asking the officer to return your license and because driving without your license is an additional traffic violation.

(2) Interrogation requirement

This requirement does not mean that you were in a room alone with the officer for hours being interrogated. Instead, you are the subject of an “interrogation” whenever a police officer asks questions that is reasonably likely to elicit incriminating information while you are also in custody.

If you make any admissions to the officer during the investigation your lawyer should evaluate whether a Miranda issue exists. Your lawyer should understand Miranda and the ways to skillfully and persuasively argue that you were entitled to Miranda rights before your incriminating statement was made by you.

Did I properly invoke my Miranda rights?

I told the officer that I was invoking my right to remain silent then later on I made incriminating statements, they cannot use those statements against me, right?

(1) Right to remain silent

This is a situation that is extremely fact specific. Generally, once you invoke your right to remain silent, you cannot be asked questions that are likely to elicit an incriminating response for the full time that you are in custody plus an additional 14 hours. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. For example, if you invoke your right to remain silent but then later begin speaking to the officer on your own, without being interrogated, then the statements may or may not be subject to suppression.

(2) Right to a lawyer

Similarly, if you invoke your right to a lawyer, you cannot be questioned about the specific crime that you were arrested for committing without your lawyer present, after you are advised of your Miranda rights. However, exceptions to this rule exist as well. For example, an officer may question you about another crime separate from the crime that caused you to be in custody without there being a violation. In these instances, it is important that your lawyer analyzes the facts to determine whether a breach that entitles you to suppression exists.

I asked for a lawyer but the officer continued to interrogate me, they cannot use my statements against me right?

Once you state unequivocally that you want a lawyer, all questioning must stop. An issue exists where you make statements such as “I think I need a lawyer now.” You must clearly and unequivocally state “I want a lawyer” for questioning to stop.

Overall, you may be entitled to a suppression of statements that you made even before you were Mirandaized. As such, your lawyer must always be weary of the circumstances under which you made your admission or statement against interest.