srothstein wrote: But in Texas, the traffic stop is an arrest. Since a person under arrest must answer with their name, address, and date of birth, I am not sure if you could legally refuse or not. Clearly you cannot provide false information, but I am unsure how the arrest laws would work through these rulings to compel an ID.
.
How does this work as far as Miranda goes? I know in most states a traffic stop is not an arrest and you are free to ask any questions w/o giving Miranda. In Texas if the driver is under arrest (any traffic stop supposedly) and they admit to a crime under questioning, this information could not be used against them.
Officer Smith stops Joe Blow for speeding (arrest, right?) Do you have any weapons or drugs in car? Yes - 3 sawed off shot guns and a kilo of coke. With no Miranda this is not usable right?
Not true. You don't have to read someone their Miranda rights before talking to them, only when questioning them about a crime.
Asking someone if they committed a crime is OK, but if they make a statement that causes you to decide to question them about the crime you need to read them their Miranda rights before continuing questioning.
srothstein wrote: But in Texas, the traffic stop is an arrest. Since a person under arrest must answer with their name, address, and date of birth, I am not sure if you could legally refuse or not. Clearly you cannot provide false information, but I am unsure how the arrest laws would work through these rulings to compel an ID.
.
How does this work as far as Miranda goes? I know in most states a traffic stop is not an arrest and you are free to ask any questions w/o giving Miranda. In Texas if the driver is under arrest (any traffic stop supposedly) and they admit to a crime under questioning, this information could not be used against them.
Officer Smith stops Joe Blow for speeding (arrest, right?) Do you have any weapons or drugs in car? Yes - 3 sawed off shot guns and a kilo of coke. With no Miranda this is not usable right?
Not true. You don't have to read someone their Miranda rights before talking to them, only when questioning them about a crime.
Asking someone if they committed a crime is OK, but if they make a statement that causes you to decide to question them about the crime you need to read them their Miranda rights before continuing questioning.
If they are under arrest you do, unless it's name rank serial number type questions.
Also if someone is not under arrest you can question them about a crime all day w/out Miranda even if they confess and start writing a statement. I
t's safe to document that you told them they were not under arrest though.
Last edited by Penn on Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
srothstein wrote: But in Texas, the traffic stop is an arrest. Since a person under arrest must answer with their name, address, and date of birth, I am not sure if you could legally refuse or not. Clearly you cannot provide false information, but I am unsure how the arrest laws would work through these rulings to compel an ID.
.
How does this work as far as Miranda goes? I know in most states a traffic stop is not an arrest and you are free to ask any questions w/o giving Miranda. In Texas if the driver is under arrest (any traffic stop supposedly) and they admit to a crime under questioning, this information could not be used against them.
Officer Smith stops Joe Blow for speeding (arrest, right?) Do you have any weapons or drugs in car? Yes - 3 sawed off shot guns and a kilo of coke. With no Miranda this is not usable right?
How do "Terry" (terry vs. ohio...i think) stops come into play. If the stop is legal from a traffic violation, can a LEO say that at that point they are legally allowed to ask questions from an investigative stand point? If so, then would it be legal to question the passenger?
Terry vs. Ohio allows the officer to stop and pat down a person to check for weapons for officer safety purposes. If the officer detects a weapon or contraband on the pat down those items can then be used as probable cause for a search and arrest.
srothstein wrote: But in Texas, the traffic stop is an arrest. Since a person under arrest must answer with their name, address, and date of birth, I am not sure if you could legally refuse or not. Clearly you cannot provide false information, but I am unsure how the arrest laws would work through these rulings to compel an ID.
.
How does this work as far as Miranda goes? I know in most states a traffic stop is not an arrest and you are free to ask any questions w/o giving Miranda. In Texas if the driver is under arrest (any traffic stop supposedly) and they admit to a crime under questioning, this information could not be used against them.
Officer Smith stops Joe Blow for speeding (arrest, right?) Do you have any weapons or drugs in car? Yes - 3 sawed off shot guns and a kilo of coke. With no Miranda this is not usable right?
Not true. You don't have to read someone their Miranda rights before talking to them, only when questioning them about a crime.
Asking someone if they committed a crime is OK, but if they make a statement that causes you to decide to question them about the crime you need to read them their Miranda rights before continuing questioning.
If they are under arrest you do, unless it's name rank serial number type questions.
A person who has been stopped for a traffic violation is not free to go and has been detained (effectively "under arrest" per the original poster's question). The person is technically being detained, not under arrest, but the original poster used "under arrest" to describe a person stopped for a traffic violation. An officer does not need to read a person their Miranda rights on a traffic stop, and the officer is free to ask the driver questions about anything.
The driver is under no obligation to answer the officer's questions beyond providing identification (DL, CHL, insurance, etc.).
If a person is in custody for a crime you need to read them their Miranda rights before talking to them about that crime.
srothstein wrote: But in Texas, the traffic stop is an arrest. Since a person under arrest must answer with their name, address, and date of birth, I am not sure if you could legally refuse or not. Clearly you cannot provide false information, but I am unsure how the arrest laws would work through these rulings to compel an ID.
.
How does this work as far as Miranda goes? I know in most states a traffic stop is not an arrest and you are free to ask any questions w/o giving Miranda. In Texas if the driver is under arrest (any traffic stop supposedly) and they admit to a crime under questioning, this information could not be used against them.
Officer Smith stops Joe Blow for speeding (arrest, right?) Do you have any weapons or drugs in car? Yes - 3 sawed off shot guns and a kilo of coke. With no Miranda this is not usable right?
Not true. You don't have to read someone their Miranda rights before talking to them, only when questioning them about a crime.
Asking someone if they committed a crime is OK, but if they make a statement that causes you to decide to question them about the crime you need to read them their Miranda rights before continuing questioning.
If they are under arrest you do, unless it's name rank serial number type questions.
A person who has been stopped for a traffic violation is not free to go and has been detained (effectively "under arrest" per the original poster's question). The person is technically being detained, not under arrest, but the original poster used "under arrest" to describe a person stopped for a traffic violation. An officer does not need to read a person their Miranda rights on a traffic stop, and the officer is free to ask the driver questions about anything.
The driver is under no obligation to answer the officer's questions beyond providing identification (DL, CHL, insurance, etc.).
If a person is in custody for a crime you need to read them their Miranda rights before talking to them about that crime.
That's what I always thought, but a previous poster said a traffic stop is an arrest under TX law. Just curious.
srothstein wrote: But in Texas, the traffic stop is an arrest. Since a person under arrest must answer with their name, address, and date of birth, I am not sure if you could legally refuse or not. Clearly you cannot provide false information, but I am unsure how the arrest laws would work through these rulings to compel an ID.
.
How does this work as far as Miranda goes? I know in most states a traffic stop is not an arrest and you are free to ask any questions w/o giving Miranda. In Texas if the driver is under arrest (any traffic stop supposedly) and they admit to a crime under questioning, this information could not be used against them.
Officer Smith stops Joe Blow for speeding (arrest, right?) Do you have any weapons or drugs in car? Yes - 3 sawed off shot guns and a kilo of coke. With no Miranda this is not usable right?
Not true. You don't have to read someone their Miranda rights before talking to them, only when questioning them about a crime.
Asking someone if they committed a crime is OK, but if they make a statement that causes you to decide to question them about the crime you need to read them their Miranda rights before continuing questioning.
If they are under arrest you do, unless it's name rank serial number type questions.
Also if someone is not under arrest you can question them about a crime all day w/out Miranda even if they confess and start writing a statement. I
t's safe to document that you told them they were not under arrest though.
Having been arrested here in TX I have some personal experience with this. I was detained and questioned without being mirandarized and subsequently arrested (ultimately the charges were dropped). The officer did in fact ask questions specific to an incident that occurred. He was able to do this based on reasonable suspicion (mostly due to the complaintant’s statement). I was eventually arrested and still was not mirandarized, but the officer did not question me from that point forward (he never even told me the charge at that point). I was finally mirandarized by the judge when he read the charge and assessed bail (release OR without bail). While reading the officer’s affidavit, I notice that he did not mention the question answer session we had prior to my arrest and made the arrest solely on the complaintant’s statement.
The Miranda decision says you must be advised of your rights when you are in police custody and are asked questions that could result in self-incrimination. It does not say under arrest, but in custody. In the case of a legal detention for investigatory purposes, you are in custody. If you go to the police station of your own free will, and the door to exit is unlocked and unblocked so you can leave whenever you want, you are not in custody. If the police come to your house and you invite them inside because you are afraid of them since there are five in unifrom, you could be considered in custody then.
How does this apply to a traffic stop? Any traffic stop means you are in police custody. If an officers asks you a question that may self incriminate you, it could very well be a civil rights violation if they do not give you your miranda warning. This includes the old standby of "Do you know why I stopped you?" But, if they do violate this rule, all it means is that the evidence resulting from the questioning is not admissible in court in most cases (and it could still be admissible to impeach you as a witness later).
As to whether or not a traffic stop is an arrest, it comes from a Court of Criminal Appeals case in 2004 (IIRC). The case involved a DWI from the border between Richardson and Plano. The border is the middle of the street and the officer was driving on the wrong side. The DWi fought the case as an illegal arrest since the officer was outside of his jurisdiction.
The court ruled that an officer outside of his jurisdiction could not make a traffic stop. Part of the logic was that the Transportation Code gives officers the authority to arrest for traffic violations. It does not give them the authority to stop for them. The Code of Criminal procedure specifically said an officer outside his jurisdiction could not arrest for the vioaltion. Since he could not arrest, and had no authority for the stop, the stop is ilelgal as an illegal arrest.
It was somewhat convoluted logic, but it basically said that a traffic stop is an arrest in Texas, not an investigatory detention. Thus, the DWi conviction was overturned.
This logic also holds in a recent SCOTUS decision which allowed a passenger to challenge the probable cause for a traffic stop. In that case, the ruling was that the passenger was also seized (which can be interpreted as an arres tor a detention) and could challenge the PC. Since there is no PC needed for a detention, to challenge requires probable cause it to be an arrest.