Pennsylvania v. Muniz

496 U.S. 582 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Police spotted respondent Muniz (D) and a passenger parked in a car on the shoulder of a highway. When the officer inquired whether D needed assistance, D replied that he had stopped the car so he could urinate. The officer smelled alcohol on D's breath and observed that D's eyes were glazed and bloodshot and his face was flushed. The officer then directed D to remain parked until his condition improved, and D gave assurances that he would do so. But as the officer returned to his vehicle, D drove off. The officer pulled him over and then asked D to perform three standard field sobriety tests: a 'horizontal gaze nystagmus' test, a 'walk and turn' test, and a 'one leg stand' test. D performed these tests poorly, and he informed the officer that he had failed the tests because he had been drinking. D was arrested and taken to the booking center which videotaped the ensuing proceedings. D was informed that his actions and voice were being recorded, but he had not been advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). He was asked his name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age. The officer then asked D, 'Do you know what the date was of your sixth birthday?' After D offered an inaudible reply, the officer repeated, 'When you turned six years old, do you remember what the date was?' D had performed earlier. The videotape reveals that his eyes jerked noticeably during the gaze test, that he did not walk a very straight line, and that he could not balance himself on one leg for more than several seconds. During the latter two tests, he did not complete the requested verbal counts from 1 to 9 and from 1 to 30. Moreover, while performing these tests, D 'attempted to explain his difficulties in performing the various tasks, and often requested further clarification of the tasks he was to perform.' D was asked to take a breathalyzer test designed to measure the alcohol content of his expelled breath. D asked a number of questions about the implied consent law, commenting in the process about his state of inebriation. D refused to take the breath test. D was for the first time advised of his Miranda rights. D then signed a statement waiving his rights and admitted in response to further questioning that he had been driving while intoxicated. The materials were admitted into evidence and D was convicted of drunk driving. D filed a motion for a new trial, contending that the court should have excluded the testimony relating to the field sobriety tests and the videotape taken at the booking center 'because they were incriminating and completed prior to receiving his Miranda warnings.' The trial court denied the motion. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed. The court concluded that 'when the physical nature of the tests begins to yield testimonial and communicative statements . . . the protections afforded by Miranda are invoked.' The court explained that Muniz's answer to the question regarding his sixth birthday and the statements and inquiries he made while performing the physical dexterity tests and discussing the breathalyzer test 'are precisely the sort of testimonial evidence that is expressly protected. The court held that all of D's responses were clearly compelled by the questions and instructions presented to him during his detention at the Booking Center. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth's application for review.