Berkemer v. McCarty

Petitioner
Harry J. Berkemer, Sheriff of Franklin Country, Ohio
Respondent
Richard N. McCarty
Petitioner's Claim
That police officers need not provide Miranda warnings prior to misdemeanor interrogations either at roadside traffic stops, in a patrol car, or at a police station and that McCarty's statements made during questioning at the police station should be admissible.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Alan C. Travis
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
R. William Meeks
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
2 July 1984
Decision
Police must inform people of their rights in accordance with the Miranda doctrine when formally arrested or vigorously questioned for any offense, including a misdemeanor traffic violation. The Court also held that the Miranda ruledoes not apply to routine questioning for a roadside traffic stop.
Significance
This case helped the U.S. Supreme Court determine more precisely when policeofficers must read motorists the Miranda warnings for traffic stops and violations. Whereas in United States v. Murray, the Court found that routine questioning pertaining to a traffic stop does not require the reading of the motorist's rights the Court ruled that police must inform motorists of their rights if they formally arrest them and take them into custody.
Miranda Warnings
Because of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the police must inform people they plan to arrest of their rights, including their right to remain silent because anything they say could be used as evidence against them, their right tohave an attorney present, and their right to have a state-appointed attorney, if they cannot afford one. The U.S. Supreme Court imposed this measure to protect people from giving self-incriminating statements while in the often intimidating atmosphere and environment of police interrogations. This decisioncarefully outlined how police must implement this safeguard when questioningsuspects in order to avoid forced or otherwise improperly obtained testimonies and confessions.
The Questioning of McCarty
While driving on 31 March 1980, Richard McCarty's car wove in and out of thelanes on Interstate 270 in Ohio, according to Trooper Williams, who followedMcCarty and pulled him over. When Williams asked McCarty to get out of the car, he saw McCarty could barely stand up. Williams concluded that McCarty hadbeen driving while under the influence of intoxicants. Williams made McCartyperform a sobriety test to examine his balancing skills to confirm his suspicion and McCarty failed it. Williams next asked McCarty if he had recently taken any intoxicants and McCarty responded that he drank two beers and smoked some marijuana shortly before driving. After that, Williams placed McCarty under arrest and took him to jail in a patrol car.
The police administered a breathalyzer test at the jail to find out the levelof alcohol in McCarty's blood; however, the test showed no presence of alcohol in McCarty, so Williams continued questioning him. While filling out the State Highway Patrol Alcohol Influence Report, Williams asked McCarty if he was under the influence of alcohol and McCarty responded, "I guess, barely." Williams then asked if the marijuana McCarty smoked had been laced with any chemicals or other drugs. Williams wrote on the form, "No ang[el] dust or PCP inthe pot." However, throughout the questioning at the roadside and at the police station no one--neither Williams nor any other police officer--informed McCarty of his Miranda rights: his right not to answer the questions, his right to an attorney, and his right to have a state attorney appointed, if he needed.
Were McCarty's Rights Violated?
McCarty and his defense tried to have the court exclude the incriminating statements he made while in custody because the police never informed him of hisconstitutional rights before questioning him. The trial court rejected his request and McCarty pleaded "no contest," receiving a 90-day jail sentence anda $300 fine. The court reduced his penalty to 10 days in jail and a $200 fine. Nonetheless, McCarty appealed his sentence, maintaining that Trooper Williams violated his rights and that he failed the sobriety test because of a back injury and a limp leg, which made him look drunk or intoxicated. The Ohio Court of Appeals, however, argued that the Miranda warnings did not apply to misdemeanors in accordance with the State v. Pyle (1970) ruling. Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear the case, believing that it didnot raise a significant constitutional question. McCarty next petitioned theDistrict Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The district court also dismissed McCarty's request, saying that the Miranda warnings did not apply totraffic arrests.
Finally, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with McCarty, mandating that the police must provide Miranda warnings prior to any formal arrest, no matter what class of crime, including traffic violations. The court of appeals distinguished between the statements McCarty made before and after hisarrest, ruling that those made after his arrest could clearly not be used against him. However, the ruling left some things unanswered, in particular, ifall of McCarty's statements prior to his arrest could be used against him and which statements the court could use in McCarty's retrial.
The U.S. Supreme Court began hearing the case on 28 April 1984 in order to resolve the dispute surrounding Miranda warnings and minor violations such as traffic offenses and questioning motorists at traffic stops. Since the Fifth Amendment states that "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal caseto be a witness against himself," state and federal law enforcement officersmust ensure that suspects are aware that they are not obligated to answer their questions, especially if the information is self-incriminating. Out of concern for such situations, the Court decided in Miranda v. Arizona that police must inform all suspects of their rights prior to interrogating them.
Although the Franklin County police department argued for allowing them to use the evidence they obtained while questioning McCarty, the Court strongly disagreed, holding that the possibility of coercion and police manipulation ofthe confession applies just as much to misdemeanors as it does to felonies. The Court reasoned that not only can an interrogation for a misdemeanor escalate into one for a felony, but also the setting of police custody works "to undermine the individual's will to resist," as the Court decided in Mirandav. Arizona. Berkemer urged that providing Miranda rights for traffic arrests would impede and slow down law enforcement, but the Court rejected this argument, noting that traffic arrests and interrogations do not occur frequently and reading suspects their rights in such cases would not impose any extraburden since police are already accustomed to giving the Miranda warnings prior to all other interrogations in police custody.
The Court then tackled the more difficult question of the statements McCartymade while interrogated at the roadside. McCarty tried to persuade the Courtthat the Miranda warnings apply to these questionings as well, because he was"deprived of his freedom of action," as the Miranda decision stipulates, while Berkemer maintained that traffic stops lay outside Miranda'sscope. The Court decided that since traffic stops usually are temporary andbrief and since they typically are not that intimidating, Miranda warnings apply to formal arrests, not to routine traffic stop questioning. Consequently,the Court deemed McCarty's roadside statements admissible. However, the Court also found that if roadside questioning should evolve into more intense andvigorous interrogation, then the questioning should be considered interrogation in police custody and subject to all the Miranda warnings. The Court hoped this additional point would help avert police abuse of the roadside-questioning exemption to the Miranda warnings.
While all the justices agreed with most of the Court's decision, Justice Stevens felt the Court answered more than the case required. The Court's decisioncovered a broad range of issues surrounding Miranda warnings and Justice Stevens felt the decision resembled blanket legislation rather than resolving aspecific legal dispute presented by the two parties. Nonetheless, resting onthe distinction between questioning for a routine traffic stop and questioning while under arrest or in police custody, Ber kemer v. McCarty articulated the general circumstances in which the police need and need not providemotorists the Miranda warnings. "When the police arrest a person for allegedly committing a misdemeanor traffic offense and ask him questions without telling him his constitutional rights, petitioner argues, his responses should be admissible against him. We cannot agree."
Related Cases

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
  
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).