In Berkemer v. McCarty (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the protections provided by the Fifth Amendment's Miranda rights apply to individuals detained for misdemeanor traffic offenses, not just those under arrest for more serious crimes. The case arose when Richard McCarty was stopped by a sheriff in Franklin County, Ohio, on suspicion of driving while intoxicated and subsequently made incriminating statements before being formally arrested or read his Miranda rights. He argued that this violated his constitutional rights against self-incrimination as outlined in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). In its decision, the court held that roadside questioning of motorists detained pursuant to routine traffic stops does not constitute "custodial interrogation" and thus does not require Mirandizing suspects; however once an individual is formally taken into custody - even if only for a minor offense - they must be informed of their legal right to remain silent and have access to legal counsel.

In the dissenting opinion for Berkemer v. McCarty, Justice Marshall argued that roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a traffic stop should be considered "custodial interrogation," thus requiring Miranda warnings. He contended that the majority's decision failed to consider the perspective of an ordinary person in such situations who would feel significantly constrained and unable to freely terminate interaction with law enforcement officers. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that routine traffic stops are non-coercive due to their public nature and brief duration; instead, he believed these factors could exacerbate feelings of intimidation or vulnerability. Lastly, Justice Marshall expressed concern about potential misuse by police officers who might manipulate circumstances surrounding a traffic stop in order to avoid providing Miranda warnings.