| 中文摘要 |
"錄影帶錄製的第二段內容為Hosterman員警要求Muniz進行其尚未被逮捕前在路邊做過的眼睛水平凝視眼球震顫測試、走直線測試、單腳站立測試。當Muniz試圖理解Hosterman員警的指示並執行前述三項清醒測試時，Muniz做出許多許多入罪陳述。Muniz向賓州州法院主張，採納錄影帶錄製Muniz進行一連串的酒駕清醒度測試，以及測試時所為之許多入罪陳述，皆是構成違反Miranda v. Arizona案的判決。During the second phase of the videotaped proceedings, Officer Hosterman asked Muniz to perform the same three sobriety tests that he had earlier performed at roadside prior to his arrest: the 'horizontal gaze nystagmus' test, the 'walk and turn' test, and the 'one leg stand' test. While Muniz was attempting to comprehend Officer Hosterman's instructions and then perform the requested sobriety tests, Muniz made several audible and incriminating statements. Muniz argued to the state court that both the videotaped performance of the physical tests themselves and the audiorecorded verbal statements were introduced in violation of Miranda v. Arizona." |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
