MIRANDA RIGHTS IN LAS VEGAS DUI ARRESTS
Not surprisingly, often the most incriminating evidence in drunk driving cases will come from the defendant themselves through the statements they make. As the officer in the field makes inquiries into the details of the situation, the replies the defendant makes can be used against them at a later date. These questions are usually for the purpose of determining how much the defendant has had to drink, the type of drinks, etc. Such inquiries can rule out the use of other drugs or medication or the possibility of any illnesses or medical conditions. This will also inhibit future declarations that the defendant was affected by his/her condition. The officer may also ask active questions such as, "What day is this?" or "Where are we?" to gauge the defendant’s cognizance. However, what if there was a possibility that the officer at hand had not read the Miranda advisement?
The United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, ruled that a suspect must be advised of certain rights once he has been arrested — mainly, the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the warning that anything said by the suspect may be used against him. If the officer thereafter asks any questions without first giving the admonition, any incriminating answers may be suppressed — that is, the prosecution will be unable to introduce them into evidence. Contrary to popular conception, then, the remedy is suppression — not dismissal of criminal charges.
Whether or not the implicating comments will be admissible in court is entirely contingent upon when the officer reads the suspect his or her Miranda advisements. Normally, the officer comprehends that they must make all of their inquiries before making an arrest. Due to this, after the arrest has been made there are not many more questions to ask (merely name, address, and other facts that cannot be held against a person).
The critical issue is: At what time was the defendant arrested, or otherwise deprived of freedom? Viewed from another perspective, at what point did the officer have legally sufficient evidence to actually make the arrest? There are also the legal issues to be addressed: Is a DUI arrest different from any other arrest when it comes to Miranda advisements? At what point should the Miranda advisement be given? Should it be when the suspect is physically arrested, when he is handcuffed, or when he has been told he is under arrest? Or perhaps when there is simply legally sufficient evidence to make the arrest?