Berkemer v. McCarty
- Decided
- July 2, 1984
- Docket
- 83-710
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,856 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled (not yet verified) · McCambridge v. State
What later courts said
- recognizing that traffic stops, which do not require Miranda warnings, involve restricting the driver’s freedom of action — United States v. Steve Leshuk (1995)
- holding that roadside questioning of motorist stopped for routine traffic violation did not constitute "custodial interrogation" for purposes of Miranda rule — United States v. Jimmie Calvin Caves, United States of America v. Chloe Kathleen Gorman (1989)
- holding that “persons temporarily detained pursuant to [traffic] stops are not ‘in custody’ for the purposes of Miranda ” — United States v. Omar Jackson (2002)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents two related questions: First, does our decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation by a suspect accused of a misdemeanor traffic [*423] offense? Second, does the roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a traffic stop constitute custodial interrogation for the purposes of the doctrine enunciated in Miranda?
I
Cite this
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.