Driving under the influence (DUI) offenses affect the cross-section of American society and no one is infallible when it comes to being involved in a DUI incident. It’s a mistake that no one wants to make but it happens. A lawyer who knows your constitutional rights during a traffic stop can make a huge difference in the outcome of your case and may be able to suppress the government’s evidence against you (the breathalyzer taken at the jail, field sobriety test results, your statements to law enforcement, etc.) if law enforcement violated your rights during the traffic stop and/or during the field sobriety tests and subsequent arrest.
First, many people do not realize that roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute a custodial interrogation subject to the procedural safeguards of Miranda. State v. Allen, 1998 MT 293, ¶ 11. This means law enforcement is not required to provide you with Miranda warnings at the outset of a traffic stop. Indeed, they do not have to provide Miranda warnings until you are considered “in custody” which generally, with exceptions, is when a person is put under arrest, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a police vehicle for transport to the jail.
So how are you supposed to respond to law enforcement during a traffic stop? Respectfully without talking any more than you have to.
Constitutional rights
Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. These protections apply to investigative stops of vehicles. Montana law provides that “a peace officer may stop any person or vehicle that is observed in circumstances that create a particularized suspicion that the person or occupant of the vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Section 46–5–401(1), MCA.
Upon a lawful investigatory traffic stop, police may generally request identification, and/or any available proof of identification, of the subject of the particularized suspicion, his or her present address, and “an explanation of the person's actions” regarding the particularized suspicion that justified the stop. State v. Noli, 2023 MT 84, ¶ 34.
The officer may also attempt to verify information provided by the subject, and ask for other related information, as long as the additional inquiry is both reasonably related in scope to the particularized suspicion and purpose that justified the stop and does not unreasonably prolong its duration under the totality of the circumstances at issue. Moreover, in furtherance of the government's generally compelling interest in highway safety regulation, routine police database checks (i.e., checks for outstanding wants/warrants, driver's license and vehicle registration status, and stolen/missing vehicle reports) are “ordinary inquiries incident to” lawful investigative traffic stops and thus permissible as long as conducted in a reasonably quick and diligent manner. Noli, ¶ 34.
If “based on additional specific and articulable facts observed or discovered during the lawful scope and duration of the initial stop,” police may also “lawfully expand or prolong the scope or duration of an investigative stop beyond its initial justification upon the development of a new or expanded particularized suspicion of criminal activity.” Noli, ¶ 35.
Field sobriety tests constitute a search under both the United States Constitution and the Montana Constitution. Accordingly, field sobriety tests require particularized suspicion that a driver is impaired. To establish particularized suspicion for field sobriety tests, a peace officer need not rely solely on the facts supporting the investigative stop. A lawful stop can escalate based upon an officer's subsequent observations. Id. However, the investigation must still remain, “within the limits created by the facts upon which the stop is predicated and the suspicion which they arouse.” Larson, ¶ 25.
State’s burden of proof
The State bears the burden of proving that an officer had particularized suspicion to stop a vehicle by showing: (1) objective data and articulable facts from which an experienced officer can make certain inferences, and (2) a resulting suspicion that the occupant of a certain vehicle is or has been engaged in wrongdoing or was a witness to criminal activity. Whether particularized suspicion exists is dependent upon a totality of the circumstances. State v. Larson, 2010 MT 236, ¶ 19. Officers must have particularized suspicion to constitute a lawful stop.
An example helps illustrate how these rules apply to a real-world situation:
If an officer only observed an individual driving with a broken taillight and after making his initial stop he did not observe any signs of intoxication, he would not have particularized suspicion that the driver was driving under the influence, and, therefore, would be prohibited from administering field sobriety tests. By contrast, if an officer stops a driver for a broken taillight and upon approaching this driver the officer does observe signs of intoxication, for example, the driver's breath smells of alcohol, his eyes are bloodshot and glassy, or his speech is slurred, the officer would have a separate particularized suspicion that the individual was driving under the influence of alcohol, and, therefore, may administer field sobriety tests. If the driver should fail the field sobriety tests, the officer would then have probable cause to arrest this individual for driving under the influence of alcohol. State v. Steinmetz, ¶ 13. And, normally, it is at the time a person is put under arrest when the person is considered “in custody” and Miranda warnings attach.
DUI’s can have a significant impact on a person’s employment and personal life, not to mention their record. The assistance of a competent DUI lawyer who steadfastly fights for your rights is essential for a good outcome. Call us today.
All information displayed on the Kris A. McLean Law Firm, PLLC website is informational and shall not be deemed as legal advice.