Pennsylvania v. Muniz

The Respondent, Inocencio Muniz (the “Respondent”), and a passenger were parked in a car on the shoulder of a highway. A police officer saw them and asked if they needed any assistance. The officer smelled alcohol on the Respondent’s breath and thought he was exhibiting other signs of intoxication. The Respondent drove off after the officer told him to stay put and the officer pulled him over. He then had the Respondent perform three field sobriety tests. The Respondent was then arrested and booked at the police station. At this point, the Respondent was not yet advised of his Miranda rights. A police officer asked the Respondent the following questions: “his name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age.” The officer then asked Muniz, “Do you know what the date was of your sixth birthday?” Certain of these responses were unclear. After Muniz offered an inaudible reply, the officer repeated, “When you turned six years old, do you remember what the date was?” Muniz responded, “No, I don’t.” The Respondent was then asked to perform the same three sobriety tests he did before. Finally, the Respondent was asked to undergo a breathalyzer test, but he refused. Only at that time was he read his Miranda rights. Thereafter, “Muniz then signed a statement waiving his rights and admitted in response to further questioning that he had been driving while intoxicated.” Much of what was done was videotaped. The Respondent was convicted of driving under the influence. He moved for a new trial arguing that “the court should have excluded the testimony relating to the field sobriety tests and the videotape taken at the booking center ‘because they were incriminating and completed prior to [Muniz’s] receiving his Miranda warnings.’ ” The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate court reversed and concluded that the videotapes should have been precluded in their entirety. The state Supreme Court refused to intervene.