How Far Can Police Go in Asking “Public Safety” Exceptions During a Traffic Stop?

A police officer is supposed to give a Miranda warning to a suspect before initiating a custodial interrogation of a criminal suspect. The courts have long recognized an exception to this rule, however, for matters involving “public safety.” For example, if during a traffic stop, an officer sees something they think might be an explosive, they are permitted to ask the driver about it without giving a Miranda warning. This means that if the driver responds, anything they say can be used against them in court.

Rental Car Questions Not Relevant to Public Safety

To be clear, the public safety exception is not a license for police to go on a fishing expedition. Any pre-Miranda warning questions must relate to some legitimate public safety concern. And again, the person being questioned always has the right to remain silent and say nothing.

A recent decision from a federal judge in Tampa provides some guidance on this subject. This is an ongoing case, United States v. Scott, where a federal grand jury indicted the defendant on drug trafficking and firearms charges. As is often the case with drug prosecutions, this one began with a seemingly benign traffic stop.

In September 2023, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s deputies observed the defendant driving a rental car. One of the officers noticed there was a broken tag light. Florida law requires all cars have tail lamps capable of making the vehicle’s license plate visible from at least 10 feet away. The deputies used this apparent traffic violation to initiate a stop.

During the stop, the officers said they found the defendant uncooperative. So they handcuffed him and placed in the back of their police vehicle. The officers also ordered the vehicle’s passenger to exit.

While the defendant was in the back of the deputy’s truck, he answered questions posed by the officers. The defendant also made several unprompted statements. The deputies did not give a Miranda warning before any of these questions or statements were made.

Meanwhile, the deputies searched the vehicle and found some white powder in the driver’s side door handle pocket. This powder later testified positive for cocaine and methamphetamine.

Following his arrest and indictment, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to the police in the back of the truck as well as the search of the rental vehicle. The court partially granted the defendant’s motion. It held that the defendant’s own “unelicited” statements while handcuffed in the deputy’s truck were admissible against him in court. So were any responses he gave to safety-related questions. But any statements he made in response to non-safety questions were inadmissible. For example, the deputies asked the defendant how long he had been driving his rental vehicle. That was a non-safety question, the court concluded.

Contact AsiliA Law Firm Today

Your safest course of action when questioned by the police is to say as little as possible. If you are arrested and charged with a crime, the person you should speak to is an experienced Miami drug trafficking defense lawyer. Call AsiliA Law Firm today at 786-420-3014 or contact us online to schedule an initial consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1151653523182707539