§ 3.7 MIRANNDA RIGHTS
Principle of Law: Although suspects are not "free to go" during traffic stops, they are not "in custody" for purposes of Miranda. Therefore, officers need only inform suspects of their Miranda rights once the actual arrest occurs. Officers have no affirmative duty to give Miranda warnings prior to requesting FSTs because the suspect is not in custody for the purposes of Miranda. A defendant has the right to counsel prior to taking a BAC test if consultation does not delay or interfere with the investigation, but the right to counsel cannot be infringed upon unless the defendant actually asks for an attorney. See also Chapter 4, Right to Counsel During Testing.
§ 3.7.1 Custody
State v. Stanley, 167 Ariz. 519, 523, 809 P.2d 944, 948 (1991)
The determination of custody is an objective test of whether a reasonable person would feel that he was deprived of his freedom in a significant way. Factors indicative of custody include: (1) whether the objective indicia of arrest are present; (2) the site of the interrogation; (3) the length and form of the investigation; and, (4) whether the investigation had focused on the accused.
§ 3.7.1.1 Custody During Traffic Stop
State v. Stabler, 162 Ariz. 370, 783 P.2d 816 (App. Div. 2, 1989)
Even though the officer did not advise the defendant of his Miranda rights and told him he was not free to go, there was no Miranda violation. A traffic stop is equivalent to a Terry investigative stop, recognized as beyond the scope of Miranda. Therefore, the defendant would not have been "in custody" for Miranda purposes until the officer formally advised the defendant that he was under arrest, handcuffed the defendant, and placed the defendant in the patrol car.
See also, Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 (1984)
A suspect is not in custody for purposes of Miranda during a Terry or traffic stop, even though they may temporarily not be free to leave.
§ 3.7.2 Interrogation
State v. Stanley, 167 Ariz. 519, 523, 809 P.2d 944, 948 (1991)
The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's statements were voluntary.
State v. Pettit, 194 Ariz. 192, 195, ¶ 16, 979 P.2d 5, 8 (App. 1998)
"Neutral, nonaccusatory questioning in furtherance of a proper preliminary investigation," does not constitute interrogation.
State v. Burns, 142 Ariz. 531, 534-35, 691 P.2d 297, 300-01 (1984)
Spontaneous statements made while a defendant is in custody are admissible so long as police have not...
