A man crashes his car while fleeing the police. He is arrested and read his Miranda rights — constitutional rights that allow one to choose to not answer an officer's questions and to request an attorney — then goes on to say things that could be considered incriminating. At the time of arrest, his blood alcohol level is 0.291, nearly three times the legal limit. His speech is slurred. And he's having trouble standing. Is everything he says still considered legally admissible in court?
Yes, says FIU associate professor of legal psychology Jacqueline Evans, who works to better understand real life cases, like this one, where alcohol intoxication might jeopardize a suspect's constitutional rights.
"People might assume if you're drunk, you can't be questioned by the police until you're sober, but they would be wrong," Evans explains.
"You can, in fact, be questioned and waive your right to counsel or silence while intoxicated, and everything you say can be used against you in court."
Examining if these constitutional rights are working as they are intended — to protect suspects from making incriminating statements — is a complex puzzle. So, piece by piece, Evans constructs a clearer picture of how intoxication factors into what happens to people in the criminal justice system.
Evans' research tackles urgent questions exploring how intoxication may negatively impact a suspect's comprehension and decision-making abilities, as well as how intoxicated statements are perceived by potential jurors. She recently found that even at lower levels of intoxication, suspects may not fully grasp or understand their Miranda rights, meaning they might not be able to enact or use those rights to protect themselves. At the same time, intoxicated suspects are likely to make incriminating statements, even if they are innocent, during interrogation.
