What Are Miranda Rights Or Miranda Warnings?

Baltimore police are not required to give Miranda warnings during routine traffic stips. Miranda warnings are required only during custodial interrogations. For instance, spontaneous statements made by a suspect without prompting from law enforcement are admissible. Similarly, routine booking questions or public safety concerns may exempt officers from delivering the warnings. Courts have found warnings are required only when a person is in police custody and subjected to questioning. In Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), the US Supreme Court clarified the application of Miranda v. Arizona to misdemeanor offenses and routine traffic stops. The case arose after an Ohio State Highway Patrol officer stopped Richard McCarty for erratic driving, observed signs of impairment, and questioned him without issuing Miranda warnings. McCarty admitted to consuming alcohol and marijuana before being formally arrested and further interrogated at a county jail.

The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda safeguards apply to all custodial interrogations, regardless of whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a felony. The Court held that McCarty’s post-arrest statements at the jail were inadmissible because he had not been informed of his rights after being taken into custody. However, the Court distinguished between formal custody and routine traffic stops, ruling that roadside questioning during a temporary traffic stop does not constitute custodial interrogation under Miranda. Such stops are brief, public, and less coercive, mitigating the need for warnings unless the motorist is subjected to restraints comparable to formal arrest. If the warnings are not administered in such circumstances, any statements obtained may be deemed inadmissible in court under the exclusionary rule.

Maryland courts, as they are obligated to do, have followed this precedent. “For example, the Miranda safeguards are not required in the context of traffic stops unless “a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him ‘in custody’ for practical purposes[.]”, quoting the the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Berkemer:

“Under the Fourth Amendment, we have held, a policeman who lacks probable cause but whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person briefly in order to investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion. [T]he stop and inquiry must be ‘reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation. [Internal citations and quotations omitted].

“Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee’s answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released. The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda. The similarly noncoercive aspect of ordinary traffic stops prompts us to hold that persons temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not “in custody” for the purposes of Miranda.” The factors considered by the court in determining if the interaction was short enough to not require warnings, the Maryland Courts have examined:

• duration of encounter with appellant
• limited nature / one trooper or more / daylight public place
• presence of weapons or restraints

Source: Rodriguez v. State, 1530-2021 (Md. App. Jun 01, 2023)

We’ve all seen on TV over the years someone getting their Miranda rights. We all know that you have a right to an attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. You don’t have to talk to the police at all, or if you want to talk, you can have an attorney present. Anytime an individual is undergoing a custodial interrogation, questioning by police under circumstances where they don’t feel they are free to leave, they have to be given these rights.