Top Law Schools

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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!