|
''Berkemer v. McCarty'', , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that, in the case of a person stopped for a misdemeanor traffic offense, once they are ''in custody'', the protections of the Fifth Amendment apply to them pursuant to the decision in ''Miranda v. Arizona'' 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Previously, some courts had been applying Miranda only to more serious offenses. The court however, stated that == Background == An officer observed the defendant’s car weaving in and out of its traffic lane.〔Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) 423〕 The officer stopped defendant and asked him to get out of his car.〔 The officer noticed that the defendant was having difficulty standing.〔 The defendant’s speech was slurred and difficult to understand.〔 Defendant could not perform a “balancing test” without falling.〔 The officer then asked the defendant if he had consumed any intoxicants. Defendant said that he drank two beers and smoked several joints of marijuana shortly before being stopped.〔 The officer then arrested the defendant and took him to the county jail where the defendant took an intoxilyzer test. The test results were negative for the presence of alcohol.〔 The officer then resumed questioning the defendant.〔Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) 424〕 The defendant responded affirmatively when asked if he had been drinking.〔 When asked if he was under the influence of alcohol said "I guess, barely."〔 At no time was the defendant advised of his Miranda rights.〔 The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress his pre and post arrest statements.〔 After exhausting his state appeals, the defendant filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus.〔Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) 425〕 The federal district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed holding that “Miranda warnings must be given to all individuals prior to custodial interrogation, whether the offense investigated is a felony or a misdemeanor traffic offense, and that respondent's post-arrest statements, at least, were inadmissible.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider two issues - whether the Miranda rule applies to defendants charged with a misdemeanor and whether an investigative detention is equivalent to Miranda custodial interrogation.〔Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Berkemer v. McCarty」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|