State v. Leavitt

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’HERN, J.

We granted certification, 107 N.J. 28 (1986), limited solely to defendant’s argument that giving Miranda 1 warnings and “implied consent” warnings to a suspected intoxicated driver is inherently confusing, thereby depriving the suspect of the effective assistance of counsel. The Miranda warnings basically state that a defendant has the right to remain silent and the right to consult with an attorney; the “implied consent” or “refusal” warnings, however, inform the suspect that the right to remain silent and right to consult with an attorney…