Armijo v. State Ex Rel. Transportation Department

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that 11 a traffic stop during which the defendant was questioned and asked to take, and then 12 repeat, field sobriety tests did not rise to the level of custody for purposes of Miranda 13 even thought the defendant was not free to leave
• “The roadside questioning of a motorist 14 pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute custodial interrogation.”
• “The fact that 10 the motorist may temporarily feel that he is not free to leave does not render him ‘in 11 custody’ for purposes of Miranda.”
• “The privilege against self-incrimination is not necessarily 11 implicated whenever a person is compelled in some way to cooperate in developing 12 evidence which may be used against him.”
• “Miranda warnings are 15 required after a traffic stop only if defendant can demonstrate that, at any time 16 between the initial stop and the arrest, he was subjected to restraints comparable to 17 those associated with a formal arrest.” (internal quotation marks and citation 18 omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).