Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

In recent posts we've covered separately Miranda rights and California DUI law. It's important to be aware, however, how Miranda applies to DUI, including some important limitations.

People often ask these questions: "When I was arrested for DUI, the officer did not read me my Miranda rights. Isn't that a violation of police procedure? Doesn't that somehow compromise the prosecution's case?"

The answers to those questions are usually no and no. Here's why.

Your Miranda rights are the following:

• you have the right to remain silent;
• any statements you make may be used against you in a court of law;
• you have the right to an attorney;
• if you can't afford an attorney, the court will appoint one.

This Miranda warning concerns your rights when two conditions are met: first, you are in police custody (i.e., you've been arrested and detained); second, you are being subjected to an interrogation (the police are asking you questions about the alleged crime).

If the police pull you over for suspicion of DUI, they will pose a series of questions to determine if you are impaired. These questions are considered an investigation that precedes an arrest. Keep in mind the conditions listed above that require police to advise you of your Miranda rights: arrest, detention, and interrogation. Pre-arrest investigative questions generally do not constitute a Miranda violation.

It's also important to understand that any comments you make during a casual conversation with the officer may be used against you. For example, let's say that you talk with the officer while being transported from the arrest scene to the jail. If you volunteer information, then Miranda does not apply.

Finally, if you are pulled over for suspicion of DUI, you are within your rights to inform the officer that you do not wish to answer any questions. If the police wish to interrogate you, a Miranda warning should be given and you should seek the advice of an attorney before answering any questions.

California's 'hit and run' laws are very specific in their requirement that a person whose vehicle is involved in any sort of accident or collision must stop and identify himself and, if necessary, give aid to injured people. Failure to do so can result in serious criminal charges. It makes no difference if you are not at fault; you must stop.

Today's post focuses on Vehicle Code 20002, which pertains to damage of property, and Vehicle Codes 20001, 20003, and 20004, which pertain to incidents that result in death or injury.

If your vehicle causes damage to any property - including but not limited to other vehicles, road signs, dwellings, fences, and gas pumps - Vehicle Code 20002 requires you to stop and identify yourself to the property owners and law enforcement personnel. Even if you were obeying all traffic laws and were not at fault, you must stop. Specifically, VC 20002 requires you to:

• Identify yourself to the owner of the damaged property and provide your driver's license and vehicle registration information;
• Leave a note with your contact information if the owner of the property can't be located;
• Report the incident to the police or other local law enforcement agency.

In addition to charges that might be filed because of the incident - such as DUI or reckless driving - failure to comply with the requirements of VC 20002 can be charged as a misdemeanor and comes with the possibility of up to six months in county jail and $1000 in fines.

If your vehicle is involved in an incident that results in injury or death to another person, Vehicle Codes 20001, 20003, and 20004 require you to stop, identify yourself, and provide assistance to any injured parties. A violation of these codes can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. A misdemeanor conviction can be punished by up to a year in county jail, while a felony conviction can be punished by a sentence to state prison. Potential fines range from $1,000 to $10,000.

The arrest in May of Sacramento Kings star Tyreke Evans for driving 130 miles an hour on Interstate 80 threw a spotlight on speeding and reckless driving on Sacramento's freeways - and the penalties that come with a conviction. The Sacramento Bee's Tony Bizjak published an article on Monday detailing the surprising number of people cited for excessive speed (Vehicle Code 22348) and reckless driving (Vehicle Code 23103). It turns out that over 80 people were issued citations by CHP for driving in excess of 100 MPH in May and June on freeways in Sacramento and Stockton.

Speeding and reckless driving convictions come with costly penalties. VC 22348 says that a first conviction for excessive speed (over 100 miles per hour) results in a $500 fine and loss of driving privileges for 30 days, with the amount fines and length of license suspension increasing with each conviction. A reckless driving conviction under VC 23103 can be punished by up to 90 days in county jail and/or fines up to $1000.

Triple Digit Speeders Surprising in Number, CHP Figures Show, Sacramento Bee, August 9, 2010

The Miranda warning is an element of the criminal justice system that through TV and movies has become widely recognized among Americans. This warning, which springs from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona, is meant to ensure that citizens understand their constitutional rights if they are arrested and subjected to interrogation by law enforcement. Supreme Court decisions during the past year, however, have placed important restrictions on the scope of the Miranda warning.

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old mentally handicapped woman. During questioning by the police, Miranda admitted to the crime. His confession was used at trial and he was found guilty.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case and in its decision said that people must be provided with basic information on their constitutional rights. At the time of Miranda's arrest, the presumption was that this was the responsibility of the individual. The Court ruled, however, that police must provide the following information to anyone arrested and interrogated: they have the right to remain silent; any statements they make may be used against them in a court of law; they have the right to an attorney; if they can't afford an attorney, the court will appoint one. None of this information had been provided to Miranda.

Note that the focus is on instances when someone is arrested and interrogated. Thus, someone who has not been arrested but is merely answering questions posed by police (such as during a traffic stop) need not be informed of his Miranda rights. Incriminating information provided during this sort of questioning may be used as evidence during a trial.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions placed additional important limitations on Miranda rights. In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Court decided that the burden of invoking the right to remain silent falls on the suspect. That means that if a person does not clearly invoke his 5th Amendment right to silence, police may continue with their interrogation. In the other decision, Maryland v. Shatzer, the Court stated that for suspects who have invoked their Miranda rights and then been released, these protections do not inhibit police indefinitely. The Court declared that a 14 day period was sufficient to allow the suspect to contact a defense lawyer and decide what to do if contacted again by law enforcement. After those 14 days, police may again approach and pose questions to the suspect.