Pennsylvania vs. Muniz - Case Study Example

Miranda v. Arizona in the US Supreme Court held that unless a criminal suspect is informed of the right to counsel and the right against self-incrimination during the police interrogation, the evidence so obtained may not be used to prosecute the suspect. In the case of Inocencio Muniz, a drunk-driven suspect was asked to perform the 3 standard field sobriety tests in order to know the mental state of the suspect and not merely for testimonial purposes. The tests were namely horizontal nystagmus test, walk and turn test, and one-leg stand test.

While performing the tests stated above, the patrol officer, the one who spotted Muniz on the roadside, asked him few questions such as Muniz's name, address, height, weight, eye color, date of birth. These questions were not intended to elicit information for investigatory purposes but it focuses primarily upon the perspective of the suspect and therefore not incriminating. After giving Muniz the various tasked, which he poorly performed, finally, the patrol officer asked Muniz to submit himself for the breathalyzer test which is designed to measure the alcohol content of his expelled breath, Which is under the Commonwealth's Implied Consent Law.

The result of this breathalyzer test will be used as real or physical evidence. The implied consent concept refers to the idea that when you get your driver's license, you agree that if you are ever arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI/DWI) of drugs or alcohol, you will submit to a blood, breath, or urine test (depending on availability and whether the suspected chemical was drugs or alcohol). Your agreement to this arrangement was implicit upon getting your license; thus, implied consent.

While implied consent laws vary by state, your implied consent applies to the state in which you were arrested, not the state where you got your license. That is if you have a license in a state with no implied consent laws, and you are arrested in a state that does have implied consent laws, you are subject to that state's implied consent laws. With the testimony of the arresting officer that Muniz failed in performing the 3 standard field sobriety tests, Muniz was then convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of 75 Pa Cons. Stat. In connection to the above statement, the Miranda right of the suspect was not violated and so it was proven that he was guilty.