a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

Miranda Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "Miranda"

DUI Blood Test and Miranda Rights

Miranda rights are required to be given when an “investigatory stop” turns into a “custodial investigation.” Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.  In other words, only when a traffic stop becomes “custodial” does the officer need to advise the defendant of his or her Miranda rights.  “Under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, statements stemming from custodial interrogations are admissible only after a showing that the procedural safeguards have been followed. “Custody” is when a defendant is taken into custody “or otherwise deprived of his freedom by...

Continue reading

Dayton DUI Lawyer’s Creed; fight for the system

Our values suggest that when the government accuses you of a crime you have the right (and your attorney the duty) to challenge the evidence against you.  If attorneys vigorously fight your case, the police are trained to do a better job investigating and prosecuting crimes.  Judges who hold the state to a higher standard and prosecutors who properly exercise discretion, protect the citizens from tyranny.  Being pro-law enforcement should not ever mean we give police a pass, but that we hold them to such a standard that even in the most difficult case we trust the system.  This was...

Continue reading

DUI Arrests Based on Nontestimonial Evidence

TESTIMONIAL vs. NONTESTIMONIALImage via WikipediaIn Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 110 S.Ct.2638 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that slurred speech and the muscle coordination (or lack thereof) required to complete the standardized field sobriety tests amount to nontestimonial information that does not fall within the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and does not invoke the safeguards of Miranda warnings.  They held that standardized field sobriety tests are "real" tests and/or tests of a "physical" variety.  This ruling was consistent with its holding in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), which held that the Fifth Amendment...

Continue reading

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Miranda

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="180" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]In the case, Berghuis v. Thompkins, the conservative Supreme Court has made major changes to the Miranda decision.  Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated, "Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.""Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain ...

Continue reading