The issue for the court was whether to create an exception to Miranda for custodial interrogations related to minor offenses.

[4] The Supreme Court declined to create such an exception, because to do so would sacrifice the certainty and clarity of the Miranda rule.

[5] The pre-arrest interrogation raised the issue of whether detention was equivalent to custody for purposes of the Miranda rule.

[6] In its opinion, the court stated: The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of the Miranda rule.

Although an ordinary traffic stop curtails the "freedom of action" of the detained motorist and imposes some pressures on the detainee to answer questions, such pressures do not sufficiently impair the detainee's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination to require that he be warned of his constitutional rights.

However, if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him "in custody" for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda.The court found that there were two significant differences between an interrogation of a person taken into custody and that of detainees.

Second, the circumstances attendant to roadside detention were substantially less coercive and compulsive than those typically surrounding custodial interrogation.