Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
63. How should the court rule regarding the driver's statement admitting his drinking?
The driver, charged with driving while intoxicated, moved to suppress the officer's testimony regarding the driver's statement about his drinking. The driver argued that the officer had elicited the statement without providing the requisite Miranda warnings. The prosecutor has responded that the statement should be allowed in the prosecution's case-in- chief or, at a minimum, should be allowed as impeachment in the event the driver testifies and denies drinking.
A police officer stopped a driver who had run a red light. Upon approaching the car, the officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol and immediately asked whether the driver had been drinking. The driver admitted having had several alcoholic drinks that evening.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. Routine traffic stops are generally not custodial. Therefore, the driver was not in custody.
C is incorrect. A police officer is not required to give Miranda warnings during routine traffic stops. Therefore, the driver's statements are admissible both substantively and for impeachment purposes.
D is incorrect. A police officer is not required to give Miranda warnings during routine traffic stops. Therefore, there the driver's statement is admissible substantively and should be allowed in the case-in-chief.