Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Routine traffic stop is not custody under Miranda
Leading case
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)
How courts have described it
holding that roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute “custodial interrogation” for purposes of Miranda
Jose Loza v. Betty Mitchell, 766 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2014)
holding that “persons temporarily detained pursuant to [traffic] stops are not ‘in custody’ for the purposes of Miranda ”
United States v. Omar Jackson, 280 F.3d 403 (4th Cir. 2002)
recognizing that traffic stops, which do not require Miranda warnings, involve restricting the driver’s freedom of action
United States v. Steve Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105 (4th Cir. 1995)
holding that individuals detained for routine traffic stops “are not ‘in custody’ for the purposes of Miranda”
United States v. Pedro Quinones-Sandoval, 943 F.2d 771 (7th Cir. 1991)
holding that roadside questioning of motorist stopped for routine traffic violation did not constitute "custodial interrogation" for purposes of Miranda rule
holding that a person subjected to only a traffic stop and field sobriety tests is not in custody for the purposes of Miranda
State v. B. Bailey, 489 P.3d 889 (Mont. 2021)
holding that Miranda does not apply when a motorist is subjected to roadside questioning during a routine traffic stop
Clark v. Municipality of Anchorage, 112 P.3d 676 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005)
Related doctrines
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.