Maybe and Maybe Not!
Criminal prosecution and defense, as with the rest of law and society, has become complex. Thus, even routine criminal cases should be pair an accused with an informed and skilled defense counsel. The Indiana Supreme Court’s recent case on Miranda warning in a field sobriety checkpoint reflects this need.
Typically, during any police detainment of any duration and questioning, Miranda warnings apply. However, in State v. Brown, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled consistently with the United States Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court held that where there was a brief (under 2 minutes) stop at a well-lit checkpoint, Miranda did not apply and the suppression of evidence and statements of Brown should not have been suppressed.
This means that with a brief police encounter, even on the street where there is no basis for a Terry stop (such as speeding) a brief police stop does not require Miranda warnings and evidence and incriminatory statements and observations are admissible and allow the case to proceed.
The Brown case reflects two important points. First, the efforts the Indiana Supreme Court takes to balance freedoms against the needs of a free, orderly and safe society by the actions of police officers. Second, it reflects the need for a defendant to have knowledgeable trial defense counsel and the skill and current understanding of the ever-changing law.
Ciyou & Dixon, P.C. attorneys handle criminal case of all types throughout the state of Indiana. This blog post was written by attorneys at Ciyou & Dixon, P.C. This blog is not a solicitation for services or intended to be legal advice. It is an advertisement.
