SFST Legal Standards 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Miranda v. Arizona, when must an officer administer Miranda warnings to a DUI suspect?
- Before any roadside questioning
- Before any SFST is administered
- Before custodial interrogation (Correct answer)
- Before the traffic stop begins
Correct answer: Before custodial interrogation
Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation.
Question 2: The exclusionary rule in DUI cases primarily serves to:
- Ensure chemical test accuracy
- Deter police misconduct by suppressing unlawfully obtained evidence (Correct answer)
- Require corroboration of SFST results
- Mandate video recording of all stops
Correct answer: Deter police misconduct by suppressing unlawfully obtained evidence
The exclusionary rule deters Fourth Amendment violations by prohibiting the use of illegally obtained evidence at trial.
Question 3: Which of the following best describes 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine in a DUI context?
- BAC results obtained after an unlawful stop may be suppressed (Correct answer)
- Officers must plant evidence to establish guilt
- SFSTs administered without consent are automatically valid
- Chemical tests override SFST observations
Correct answer: BAC results obtained after an unlawful stop may be suppressed
Evidence derived from an unconstitutional stop — including BAC results — can be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Question 4: In Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016), the Supreme Court held that:
- Blood draws incident to arrest require a warrant
- Breath tests incident to a lawful DUI arrest do not require a warrant (Correct answer)
- All chemical tests require judicial approval
- Implied consent laws are unconstitutional
Correct answer: Breath tests incident to a lawful DUI arrest do not require a warrant
Birchfield held that breath tests are permissible as a search incident to lawful arrest, but blood draws require a warrant absent exigency.
Question 5: What is the legal significance of the NHTSA-standardized administration of SFSTs?
- Non-standardized administration voids the arrest automatically
- Deviations from NHTSA protocol can reduce the weight of SFST evidence but do not always require suppression (Correct answer)
- Only NHTSA agents may testify about SFSTs
- Standardized tests are not admissible without a lab report
Correct answer: Deviations from NHTSA protocol can reduce the weight of SFST evidence but do not always require suppression
Courts generally allow SFST evidence even with minor deviations, but significant departures from NHTSA protocol can affect its evidentiary weight.
Question 6: Which case recognized that a warrantless blood draw may be justified by exigent circumstances in a DUI investigation?
- Schmerber v. California (Correct answer)
- Terry v. Ohio
- Mapp v. Ohio
- Illinois v. Wardlow
Correct answer: Schmerber v. California
Schmerber v. California held that the natural dissipation of blood alcohol can constitute exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless blood draw.
Question 7: An officer stops a vehicle for a broken tail light and develops DUI suspicion. The legal basis for investigating DUI in this scenario is:
- The original traffic violation provides lawful pretext to extend the stop for DUI investigation (Correct answer)
- A new, separate stop must be initiated for DUI
- The officer must obtain a warrant before asking any DUI questions
- The stop must immediately end after citing the tail light
Correct answer: The original traffic violation provides lawful pretext to extend the stop for DUI investigation
A lawful traffic stop may be extended to investigate DUI if the officer develops independent reasonable suspicion during the stop.
SFST Legal Standards 3
Under Miranda v.
Arizona, when must an officer administer Miranda warnings to a DUI suspect?