Traffic stops, sobriety testing, and use of stop and frisk are not considered interrogation. Why not?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Subtle compulsion is a minimal amount of duress that drives someone to do or say something. It does not amount to an interrogation unless it can also be shown that a suspect’s incriminating response is the product of words or actions on the part of police that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response (Innis, 1980).
The roadside questioning of motorists detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute “custodial interrogation” for the purposes of the Miranda rule (Innis, 1980). Although an ordinary traffic stop curtails the “freedom of action” of the detained motorists and imposes some pressures on detainees to answer questions, such pressures do not sufficiently impair detainees’ exercise of their privilege against self-incrimination to require that they be warned of their constitutional rights. Traffic stops are usually brief, and motorists expects that, while theymay be given a citation, in the end they most likely will be allowed to continue on their way. Moreover, the typical traffic stop is conducted in public, and the atmosphere surrounding it is substantially less “police dominated” than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda and subsequent cases in which Miranda has been applied.
A police officer may stop a person in order to question him or her if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. For self-protection, the officer can at the same time carry out a limited pat-down search for weapons, which is called a frisk. This is not a custody situation, nor is this considered a search. No Miranda rights are required.