In the context of a drunk driving arrest, there are really two sets of rights that should be read to a suspect by the police; the Miranda rights and the chemical test rights. The Miranda rights are the rights that most of us are familiar with, and address your right to speak with an attorney before questioning. A reading of the Miranda rights will include an affirmative statement by the police that what you say can be used against you in Court.

No. However, the state might be prevented from using any evidence collected after the failure to read you your "Miranda Warnings". It is important that you hire a good attorney that is knowledgeable about this area of the law.

No. The officer is supposed to give a 5th Amendment warning after he arrests you. Often, however, they do not. The only consequence is that the prosecution cannot use any of your answers to questions asked by the police after the arrest. Of more consequence in most cases is the failure to advise you of the state's "implied consent" law - that is, your legal obligation to take a chemical test and the results if you refuse. This can effect the suspension of your license.

Usually, the answer is no. Police are only required to read you Miranda warnings if you are placed into custody and then questioned.

In a typical DUI stop most police officers are trained that they do not have to read these particular rights before they begin to question you regarding the events that lead up to the traffic stop. They are also trained to ask certain questions to elicit voluntary admissions of drinking or using recreational drugs.

Perhaps. The police are only required to read you your "Miranda Rights" if you are actually “in custody” and are a suspect in the crime that they question you about. Failure to advise you of your rights does not automatically result in a dismissal of the charges or your statements being suppressed.

Failure to advise you of your Miranda rights does not automatically result in dismissal of the case against you. It is possible to get your statements thrown out in certain circumstances, but you should discuss the facts of your case fully with a knowledgeable and experienced criminal law attorney at Paul J. Tafelski, P.C. Contact us today.

Miranda v. Arizona is a famous case in which the United States Supreme Court held that before a confession is admissible in court against a suspect, (1) the police must have informed the suspect that he has a right to counsel and to remain silent, and (2) that the suspect must have intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights. However, this only applies to custodial interrogation.