In the case of Pennsylvania v. Bruder, Thomas Al., Jr., 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers are not required to inform individuals of their Miranda rights prior to asking them preliminary questions during a traffic stop. The defendant, Thomas Bruder was stopped by an officer for driving under influence (DUI). During this initial interaction and before being read his Miranda rights, he made incriminating statements which were later used against him in court. He appealed on grounds that he had not been informed of his right to remain silent or have legal counsel present before making these statements. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" and therefore does not require Miranda warnings.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania v. Bruder, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding an individual's right to counsel during custodial interrogation. He contended that by ruling in favor of Pennsylvania and against Thomas Al Bruder Jr., the court had effectively diminished Miranda rights. According to him, it is not enough for law enforcement officers to simply inform suspects of their rights; they must also ensure these individuals understand them before proceeding with questioning or arrest procedures. In this case, he believed Mr.Bruder should have been explicitly informed about his right to free legal representation even if he could not afford one himself prior to being questioned by police officers after being pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving.