Motion to Suppress Statements because of Miranda Violations

The drunk driving defense lawyers at The Kavinoky Law Firm typically file one or more pretrial motions when preparing for trial. One request that may be employed is a motion to suppress statements because of Miranda warning violations.

Every criminal suspect must be warned of his or her Miranda rights prior to being questioned. If a suspected drunk driver is arrested and then questioned without being advised of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by the driver likely will be excluded from trial.

Miranda warnings stem from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Miranda vs. Arizona, which states that criminal suspects must be advised of their right against self-incrimination and the right to have an attorney present during interrogation. Most police agencies issue a warning similar to the following:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present now and during any future questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you at no cost."

The central Miranda issue in a California drunk driving case is usually whether or not the defendant was under arrest during an interrogation when an incriminating statement was made. Generally, pre-arrest statements are not subject to the Miranda decision. Pre-arrest questions normally occur during relatively brief traffic stops.

Questions like "Have you been drinking?" "Where have you been?" "When did you drink?" and "How much have you had to drink?" are admissible in a California driving under the influence case because they occur before an arrest, therefore before custodial interrogation can take place.

However, any admissions obtained during an unlawful detention, arrest, or search may be inadmissible, depending on the circumstances. If police pulled a driver over without probable cause, then the motorist's statement that he or she drank two beers may be excluded.

The U.S. Supreme Court holds that investigative questions during traffic stops are allowable because the encounters are relatively brief. However, if the detention is prolonged without adequate and substantiated reason, then the stop is no longer brief and the statements elicited by the police agency may be ruled involuntary and therefore inadmissible.

Many drivers arrested on suspicion of DUI / DWI in California worry that statements made to police after arrest means a sure-fire conviction, but that's not necessarily the case. A California lawyer experienced in drunk driving defense can determine whether statements made to authorities should be suppressed because of Miranda violations.