About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 883 (1990-1991)
Fifth Amendment--Videotaping Drunk Drivers: Limitations on Miranda's Protections

handle is hein.journals/jclc81 and id is 893 raw text is: 0091-4169/91/8104-883 THEJouRNA. OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRUMNotOY Vol. 81, No. 4 Copyright @ 1991 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. FIFTH AMENDMENT-VIDEOTAPING DRUNK DRIVERS: LIMITATIONS ON MIRANDA 'S PROTECTIONS Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 110 S. Ct. 2638 (1990) I. INTRODUCTION In Pennsylvania v. Muniz,1 the United States Supreme Court held that the fifth amendment's prohibition against compelled self-in- crimination, as interpreted in Miranda,2 did not preclude the intro- duction at trial of a videotape of a person suspected of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, despite the fact that, at the time of the recording, the suspect had not been in- formed of his Miranda rights.3 The Court held that the slurred na- ture of a suspect's speech and related indicia of a lack of muscular coordination constituted physical, and not testimonial, evidence, and thus lay outside the scope of Miranda's protections.4 The Court ruled that a question requiring a suspect to perform arithmetic cal- culation constituted an attempt to elicit incriminating testimonial evidence, and that a response indicating the suspect's inability to calculate was inadmissible at trial.5 The Court also held that incrim- inating testimonial evidence offered during the course of routine in- terrogation designed to obtain information necessary for processing lay outside the scope of Miranda's protections.6 Finally, the Court declined to extend the concept of implicit interrogation to the ad- ministration of sobriety and breathalyzer tests, and held that incrim- inating testimonial evidence offered during those procedures was admissible at trial.7 Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a separate opinion dissenting from that portion of the ruling which held that a response to a ques- tion requiring calculation constituted inadmissible testimonial evi- l 110 S. Ct. 2638 (1990). 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3 Muniz, 110 S. Ct. at 2652. 4 Id. at 2645. 5 Id. at 2649. 6 Id. at 2650. 7 Id. at 2651-52. 883

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most