Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER 488 U.S. 9 (1988) Case Brief

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.All Rights Reserved.

PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER488 U.S. 9 (1988)

Case Brief


PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER

• PURPOSE: Illustrates an exception to Miranda warnings.



• CAUSE OF ACTION: Driving under the influence (DUI).



• FACTS: A motorist driving erratically and running a stop sign was stopped by police. Smelling alcohol on motorist’s breath, the officer administered a field sobriety test, which the motorist failed. He was charged with DUI. The trial court allowed statements and conduct prior to arrest without Miranda warnings. Superior Court reversed.



• ISSUE: Whether evidence from the field sobriety test was admissible as evidence in absence of Miranda warnings.



• HOLDING: Yes. Evidence was admissible.



• REASONING: Following Berkemer v. McCarty, the Court held that a traffic stop is not a “custodial interrogation” (which would require Miranda warnings) even where a field sobriety test is used.



• AFTERTHOUGHT: Many cases have addressed this issue. They can be found compiled and discussed at: 25 A.L.R.3d 1076, “Right of motorist stopped by police officers for traffic offense to be informed at that time of his federal constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona.”

Documents

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER 488 U.S. 9 (1988) Case Brief