Miranda Rights and DUI Stops in New Jersey

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. If you have been pulled over for suspected DUI in New Jersey and the officer never read you your Miranda rights, you might think your case should be thrown out. You might think everything you said to the police is inadmissible. Most people do. And most people are wrong.

Heres the reality that catches nearly everyone off guard: Miranda protection at a DUI traffic stop is mostly a phantom. The rights you think you have? They probably did not apply when it actually mattered - during those first few minutes at the roadside when you were telling the officer about those beers you had at dinner.

The Miranda Myth That Destroys DUI Cases

Miranda only kicks in when two things happen simultaneously: custody AND interrogation. A traffic stop on its own is neither. Let that sink in for a moment. You can be standing on the side of a highway with police lights flashing behind you, answering questions about where you were and what you drank, and none of it triggers Miranda protection.

The officer asks have you been drinking tonight. You say just a couple. That statement goes directly into the police report. No warning required. No rights violated. Because that question - the one that feels like an interrogation - is legally classified as an investigative question during a consensual encounter.

Think about what that means. You can be detained, questioned, and incriminate yourself for ten minutes on the side of the highway - all perfectly admissable - becuase you were technicaly free to leave. The fact that you didnt feel free to leave is legaly irrelevant.

When Police Must (And Dont Have To) Read Rights

Lets be very clear about what triggers Miranda in New Jersey. Two conditions must both exist at the same time. First the person must be in custody - and custody has a specific legal definition that is far narrower than most people realize. Second the police must be conducting an interrogation - meaning words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

A routine traffic stop dosent meet either condition in most cases. Your standing on a public road. Your free to move around. The officer hasnt told you your under arrest. Under court precedent going back decades, this isnt custody.

And those questions about drinking? Courts have consistantly ruled that standard investigative questions during a traffic stop arent interrogation. The officer asking where you were coming from, how much you had to drink, when your last drink was - these are all considered preliminary investigative inquiries. Not interrogation.

Heres the kicker: police are trained to obtain the maximum amount of incriminating information before making an arrest. Thats when Miranda actualy kicks in. Everything before the arrest? Fair game for the prosecution.

The Custody Trap Nobody Explains

The moment you feel like you cant leave doesnt matter legally. What matters is whether a reasonable person in the same situation would feel free to terminate the encounter and leave. And courts give police enormous benefit of the doubt on this question.

Factors courts consider when determining custody:

• Did the encounter happen on a public road versus a police station
• How long did the questioning last
• Were you told you were under arrest
• Were you handcuffed or physicaly restrained
• Could you move around freely

In the Sean Higgins case from 2025, the defendant argued he was effectivly in custody during roadside questioning after the crash that killed Johnny and Matthew Gaudreau. The prosecution pointed out he was allowed to walk around freely and even smoke a cigarette. The judge agreed with prosecutors - no custody, no Miranda requirement.

Higgins had told police I've been drinking beers and mentioned having five or six since noon. All those statements came in as evidence. Hes now facing up to 70 years in prison.

Field Sobriety Tests: Physical Evidence Not Testimony

OK so heres something most people dont understand about field sobriety tests. There classified as physical evidence, not testimony. The Fifth Amendment protects you from being compelled to give testimony against yourself. It doesnt protect you from having to provide physical evidence.

What does this mean practicaly? It means you have no constitutional right to refuse a field sobriety test based on self-incrimination grounds. But heres were it gets interesting - you also cant be legaly forced to perform them. The officer cant make you walk the line or stand on one leg.

The problem is police officers are not required to tell you that field sobriety tests are voluntary. Most people assume if an officer asks them to step out and perform some tests, they have to comply. They dont. But nobody tells them that in the moment.

Refusing the field tests deprives the officer of evidence they could use against you. It dosent stop them from making an arrest based on other observations - the smell of alcohol, slurred speach, bloodshot eyes, the way you were driving. But it removes one more peice of evidence from there case.

The Breathalyzer Question: No Fifth Amendment Protection

The implied consent law in New Jersey means you already agreed to the breathalyzer when you got your drivers license. Read that again. When you signed for your license, you implicitly consented to chemical testing if lawfully arrested for DUI. This isnt something that can be undone at the moment of the traffic stop.

Refusing the breathalyzer dosent invoke any rights - it triggers automatic penalties. First refusal in New Jersey carries a $300-$500 fine, license suspension until you install an ignition interlock device for 9-15 months, and mandatory time at an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center. Repeat refusals can mean license revocation up to 20 years and fines up to $2,000.

And heres the paradox that trips people up: silence when asked to take a breathalyzer counts as refusal. But silence during questioning is your right. Two different kinds of silence with completly different legal consequences.

One critical distinction that could matter in your case: blood tests require either a warrant or your consent. Breath tests require neither. Know which one your being asked for. If police are asking for blood, you can refuse without triggering implied consent penaltys (though they may get a warrant). If there asking for breath, refusal has automatic consequences.

State v. Stever: The Case That Changed Everything

In 1987 the New Jersey Supreme Court decided State v. Stever, and that decision still controls DWI law in this state today. Thats 37 years of defendants learning too late what the rules actualy are.

Charles Stever was stopped at 3:05 AM for traffic violations. Open beer bottle visible, flushed face, bloodshot eyes, obvious alcohol odor. He failed field sobriety tests. At headquarters he refused the breathalyzer test four times. He was never given Miranda warnings at any point.

His statements were admitted at trial. His refusal was admitted at trial. The Supreme Court held that a police request for a breathalyzer does not constitute interrogation under Miranda. The request is routine procedure, not designed to elicit incriminating testimony. And since it wasnt interrogation, no Miranda warning was required.

The court also ruled that breathalyzer refusal itself is admissable evidence becuase its non-testimonial. Your exercising a right that dosent exist is evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Todd Spodek at Spodek Law Group has seen how prosecutors use Stever to devastating effect in DUI cases. The defendant thinks there statements should be suppressed. The prosecutor cites Stever. The judge admits everything. Case by case, this happens across New Jersey courtrooms.

The Sean Higgins Reality Check (2025)

If you want to understand how Miranda actualy works in New Jersey DUI cases in 2025, look at the Sean Higgins prosecution. On August 29, 2024, Higgins allegedly struck and killed NHL star Johnny Gaudreau and his brother Matthew while they were cycling near there hometown. His blood alcohol level was .087 - just .007 over the legal limit.

Before any Miranda warning was given, Higgins told officers Ive been drinking beers. He said he had five or six since noon that day. He claimed I havent had one in like two hours.

His defense attorneys filed a motion to suppress these statements, arguing Miranda rights were violated. They pointed out he wasnt read his rights on scene before speaking with police. They argued questioning continued after he had asked for a lawyer.

Judge Michael Silvanio rejected the motion entirely. In November 2025, he ruled all statements were lawfully obtained and admissable at trial. The roadside comments came in. The post-arrest statements came in. Everything Higgins said became evidence against him.

The prosecution argued succesfully that there was no custody during roadside questioning. Higgins could walk around. He could smoke cigarettes. He wasnt restrained. Under New Jersey law, that means no Miranda requirement.

Heres what the Higgins case teaches everyone facing DUI charges: what you say at the roadside will probly be used against you, and Miranda isnt going to save you from your own words.

What You Actually Should Do During a DUI Stop

We handle DUI defense cases throughout New Jersey, and the advice we give clients is straightforward: understand what rights you actualy have, not the rights you think you have.

You have the right to decline to answer questions. When the officer asks where your coming from or how much you had to drink, you can politely say I would prefer not to answer that question. This is not the same as Miranda - its your general right not to incriminate yourself, which exists independant of any warning.

You have the right to refuse field sobriety tests. Nobody has to tell you this. But if an officer asks you to perform tests, you can decline. Be polite but clear. This may not stop an arrest but it limits the evidence.

You do not have the right to refuse the breathalyzer without conseqences. The implied consent law means refusal triggers seperate penalties. Some people decide the penalties for refusal are preferable to providing BAC evidence. Thats a calculation you have to make in the moment.

Most importantly: anything you say before your arrested is almost certainly admissable. If you understand nothing else from this article, understand that. The friendly conversation with the officer, the explanations about where you were, the admissions about having a few drinks - all of it goes into the police report and potentially into court testimony.

When Statements Can Be Suppressed

Despite everything above, there are situations were Miranda violations can result in suppression of statements. Understanding when this actualy applies requires looking at the specifics of your case with an experienced DUI defense attorney.

If questioning continued after you clearly invoked your right to counsel, statements made after that point may be supressible. Higgins defense tried this argument unsucessfully, but the facts of your case may be different.

If you were clearly in custody - handcuffed, in the back of a patrol car, at the police station - and questioned without Miranda warnings, those statements may be supressible. The key question is always whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave.

Fresh Miranda warnings are required in New Jersey before each new round of questioning after arrest. If police questioned you, took a break, and came back to question you again without re-reading your rights, there may be grounds for suppresion.

But heres the irony: even if some statements are suppressed, the case doesnt automaticaly go away. Prosecutors can still proceed based on the BAC results, the officer observations, the driving pattern, and any other physical evidence. Statement suppression hurts there case but rarely destroys it.

The smart move is understanding these rules before you ever find yourself in a DUI stop situation. The smarter move is calling Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196 if you already made statements during a stop and need to know where you stand. Not every case is lost, but every case requires understanding what actualy happened versus what you think should have happened legally.