|
||||||
 |
|
|
||||
|
In a drunk driving case, the most detrimental evidence often doesn’t come from the breathalyzer or the field sobriety tests but from the defendant’s own self-incriminating statements. Usually, these admissions are in response to a series of questions asked by the investigating officer. In fact, these questions follow a routine format and are designed to find out such things as how many alcoholic beverages the suspect has consumed, what they were (beer, wine, or hard liquor), when and where he or she has been drinking, and if drugs or medication had been involved. The questions also analyze a suspect’s mental awareness and the possibility of illness or medical conditions (to invalidate later claims that they affected his or her driving ability). These questions have become more and more standardized. In fact, some law enforcement agencies have officially formalized the interrogation in DUI cases by including a list of questions in their arrest report forms. In a drunk driving case, the admissibility of the suspect’s answers to the DUI interrogation questions is normally brought into question when there is disagreement on when the officer should have informed the suspect of his or her Miranda rights. The prosecution typically claims that although the defendant was detained, he was in fact not in custody and thus the questioning was part of a preliminary investigation, rendering the advisements unnecessary. In reality, the officer will almost always determine at an early stage that the suspect is intoxicated, based on his driving pattern, the smell of alcohol on his breath, incoherent speech, bloodshot eyes, or lack of coordination when getting out of the vehicle. In actuality, the officer is investigating to acquire evidence with which to seal the case. The legal issue is the timing of the Miranda warnings to the defendant, and this involves such questions as:
The other side to the issue is the actual application of those standards. When was the defendant arrested? When did the officer have probable cause to arrest? It is important to keep in mind that, unfortunately, officers are often willing to falsify their answers to such questions in court. The officers who are familiar with the way that court hearings work will rarely admit that they had probable cause to arrest the suspect before they questioned the suspect. Consequently, they may circumvent the Miranda advisements until after they have secured incriminating admissions from the suspect, often well after the time when a lawful arrest has, in fact, been made. |
Copyright 2001 - 2008 |
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
