A police officer stopped a driver who had run a red light. Upon approaching the car, the officer noticed a strong odor of alcoho
l and immediately asked whether the driver had been drinking. The driver admitted having had several alcoholic drinks that evening. 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. How should the court rule regarding the driver's statement admitting his drinking
Police Officer Stopping a Driver Who Had Run a Red Light
The driver's statement should be allowed, as pleaded by the prosecution, because the driver was not in custody for Miranda purposes when the free admission of drinking alcohol was made.
Explanation:
The driver freely disclosed his statement about having several alcoholic drinks that evening. At the time he made the statement, the driver was not under custody, he was not under arrest, and he was not suspected of driving under intoxication. The officer stopped him because he had run a red light (another traffic offense) and only noticed the strong odor of alcohol after the traffic offense was committed. Possibly, the alcohol odor could have emanated from another source altogether.
Actual malice is the legal requirement imposed on specific defamation plaintiffs when filing a lawsuit for libel or slander, and will be found where a defendant publishes or communicates a false statement with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its veracity.
