How come traffic stops aren't considered custodial? Forum

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
User avatar
Gamecubesupreme

Bronze
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:54 pm

How come traffic stops aren't considered custodial?

Post by Gamecubesupreme » Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:57 pm

I believe the case law is that traffic stops generally are not considered custodial because they generally are brief and temporary.

But this just seems counter-intuitive to me because the test for custody is whether a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave. In what world would a reasonable person believe he is free to leave during a traffic stop?

Just wondering if I am misinterpreting the case law or the test for custody on this issue.

AMCD

Bronze
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: How come traffic stops aren't considered custodial?

Post by AMCD » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:04 pm

"The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of the Miranda rule. Although an ordinary traffic stop curtails the "freedom of action" of the detained motorist and imposes some pressures on the detainee to answer questions, such pressures do not sufficiently impair the detainee's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights. A traffic stop is usually brief, and the motorist expects that, while he may be given a citation, in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way... However, if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him "in custody" for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda." Berkemer v. McCarty.

Same for things like DUI stops--general in nature, and not singling out a motorist for some particularlized reason.

juniormint33

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:28 pm

Re: How come traffic stops aren't considered custodial?

Post by juniormint33 » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:23 pm

It's a really subtle distinction but it helps me to think about the difference between seizurely detentions and investigatory detentions. Seizurely detentions such as "You're coming with us, pal" require probable cause whereas investigatory detentions like traffic stops and DUI tests are investigatory detentions requiring only reasonable suspicion.

AMCD

Bronze
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: How come traffic stops aren't considered custodial?

Post by AMCD » Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:21 pm

However, routine traffic stops or DUI check points require no reasonable suspicion -- not clear from the OP whether they were talking, pulled over on the freeway individually, or stopped at LAX along with everyone else to glance into your car before you proceed to parking.

THE_U

Bronze
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:29 pm

Re: How come traffic stops aren't considered custodial?

Post by THE_U » Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:40 pm

AMCD wrote:However, routine traffic stops or DUI check points require no reasonable suspicion -- not clear from the OP whether they were talking, pulled over on the freeway individually, or stopped at LAX along with everyone else to glance into your car before you proceed to parking.
A traffic stop absolutely requires reasonable suspicion (that a crime/traffic violation occurred)

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


juniormint33

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:28 pm

Re: How come traffic stops aren't considered custodial?

Post by juniormint33 » Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:46 pm

THE_U wrote:
AMCD wrote:However, routine traffic stops or DUI check points require no reasonable suspicion -- not clear from the OP whether they were talking, pulled over on the freeway individually, or stopped at LAX along with everyone else to glance into your car before you proceed to parking.
A traffic stop absolutely requires reasonable suspicion (that a crime/traffic violation occurred)
Agreed. Traffic stops require reasonable suspicion. DUI checkpoints do not, but those are sort of a different animal altogether.

AMCD

Bronze
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: How come traffic stops aren't considered custodial?

Post by AMCD » Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:30 am

Sorry not to have been clear: By routine traffic stop I meant something along the lines of, say, when you cross over a border and they might stop you for some sort of neutral purpose -- not as in pulling you over for maybe speeding, unsafe turn, possible dui etc. Last week the cops stopped me entering LAX and just looked into the back of my car and asked me to pop the trunk. No need for RS. Not custodial. Sorry for the confusion!

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”