SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Procedure Keyed to Dressler
Berkemer v. McCarty
Citation:
468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317.Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
On the evening of March 31, 1980, an officer of the Ohio State Highway Patrol observed the defendant’s car weaving in and out of a lane. He forced him to stop and get out of the vehicle. The officer noticed that the defendant was having difficulty standing and had slurred speech. The officer concluded that the defendant would be charged with a traffic offense and, therefore, his freedom to leave the scene was terminated. However, the defendant was not told that he would be taken into custody. The officer then asked the defendant to perform a field sobriety test, which the defendant failed.
While still at the scene of the traffic stop, the officer asked the defendant whether he had been using intoxicants. The defendant said that he drank two beers and smoked marijuana. The officer then formally placed the defendant under arrest.
At the jail, the defendant was given a test to determine the concentration of alcohol in his blood. The test did not detect any alcohol whatsoever in the defendant’s system. The officer resumed questioning the defendant the defendant indicated again that he had been drinking. At no point in this sequence of events did the officer or anyone else give the defendant his Miranda warnings.
The defendant was charged with a misdemeanor traffic violation. He sought to exclude all of the incriminating statements he made to the officer, arguing that his Fifth Amendment rights would be violated if the statements were used against him as he had not been informed of his constitutional rights prior to the interrogation.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.
6m 59s
