User:MonsieurKovacs/sandbox

The DUI exception to the Constitution is an umbrella term for a set of procedures that are legally allowable when investigating driving under the influence offenses, but would be unconstitutional under any other circumstance. The exception developed over a the course of several cases brought before the US Supreme Court regarding the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and other common law legal protections. In 1983 in Berkemer v. McCarty, the Supreme Court found that admitting guilt during a DUI traffic stop before receiving the Miranda warning did not violate the defendant's Miranda rights because a traffic stop does not "render the defendant in custody. Later, in Sitz v. Michigan, the Court held that random sobriety checks did not violate the Fourth Amendment because ".. the State's interests in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon the individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program." And, in Neville v. South Dakota, the majority decided found that compelling a suspect to perform a breathalyzer test does not constitute a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to refrain from incriminating himself. Also of note, the right to have an attorney present during questioning is abrogated during DUI investigations.