A routine traffic stop is not an arrest. It probably isn't technically a Terry stop, though it has been analogized as such. It is more likely classified as a regulatory inspection.
"Where the police have observed a traffic violation, they are warranted in stopping a vehicle. See Commonwealth v. Cavanaugh, 366 Mass. 277, 278, 281 (1974); Commonwealth v. Hawkes, 362 Mass. 786, 788 (1973); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977). See also Commonwealth v. Tisserand, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 383, 384 (1977), where a traffic violation was accompanied by suspicious conduct. Similarly, investigation of the circumstances of an occupied vehicle parked in a high crime area in the middle of the night may be warranted. See Commonwealth v. Almeida, 373 Mass. 266, 271-272 (1977) (vehicle parked in a private parking space with its lights out and motor running); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (police informed that occupant had narcotics and a concealed weapon). However, the police are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States from stopping a particular vehicle at random simply because they want to check the driver's license or the registration of the motor vehicle. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 (1979). Likewise, a pedestrian may not be detained and required to identify himself when the police lack any reasonable suspicion to believe that that person was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52-53 (1979). "
Commonwealth v. Bacon, 381 Mass. 642, 644 (1980).
"Ordinary traffic stops, including those involving operators suspected of driving under the influence, have not been held to be custodial. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. at 437-439; Vanhouton v. Commonwealth, 424 Mass. 327, 331, 676 N.E.2d 460, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 834, 139 L. Ed. 2d 59, 118 S. Ct. 104 (1997); Commonwealth v. Cameron, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 912, 914, 689 N.E.2d 1365 (1998). The same is true for many Terry stops, where police "may detain [a] person briefly in order to 'investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion.'" Berkemer v. McCarty, supra at 439, quoting from United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881, 45 L. Ed. 2d 607, 95 S. Ct. 2574 (1975). Moreover, the Court in Berkemer analogized traffic stops to the "comparatively nonthreatening character" of Terry stops and commented on "the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to dictates of Miranda." Berkemer v. McCarty, supra at 440. Compare Commonwealth v. Gordon, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 825, 827, 716 N.E.2d 1036 (1999), quoting from United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1291 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211, 75 L. Ed. 2d 447, 103 S. Ct. 1206 (1983) ("Miranda warnings are necessary even during a Terry stop if the suspect has been taken into custody or if the questioning otherwise takes place in a police dominated or compelling atmosphere")."
Commonwealth v. LaFleur, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 546, 548 (2003).
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
