High Court to look at Miranda ruling in fall session

WASHINGTON -- "You have the right to remain silent" will be a common utterance around the Supreme Court this fall.

Justices will hear appeals in three cases -- including one from Missouri -- involving the court's 37-year-old mandate that police officers warn suspects of their rights before beginning interrogations.

The eventual rulings will tell police how far they can go to get answers from suspected criminals, and let courts know when they must bar confessions or evidence from a trial.

Officers hoping to enhance their chances of getting a suspect to divulge key information sometimes put off reading "Miranda warnings." After they get a confession, or answers that will lead to a weapon or other evidence, officers then run through the warnings that have been made famous by TV cop shows.

The Supreme Court will decide if it's smart detective work or deceitful trickery to delay the warning.

Critics say people may not realize that information divulged before they are read their rights cannot be used at trial and they then repeat incriminating statements later in formal interviews.

Yale Kamisar, a Miranda expert who teaches law at the University of Michigan and the University of San Diego, said police officers are being trained to get around Miranda and the court should stop it.

Take it or leave it

"This is really making a joke out of the whole thing. Even the Supreme Court justices who are not terribly enthusiastic about Miranda have to realize you either keep Miranda on the books or you don't," he said.

Law enforcement is paying attention to the cases.

"They want to make the arrest, but they want to make it stick too," said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations. "They don't want to be embarrassed by the prosecutor, or the judge."

Interrogations are restricted under the court's 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, which requires officers to warn the people they arrest and question of their rights to remain silent and see a lawyer.

The court reaffirmed Miranda in 2000, but then gave police a victory this summer with a ruling that officers cannot be sued for violating the standard as long as the confession is not used in a prosecution.

The issue of interrogations is also getting some legislative attention. Last month, Illinois became the first state with a law requiring police to tape interrogations and confessions of murder suspects, intended to ensure those in custody are not tortured or coerced.

The upcoming Supreme Court cases give people a glimpse of what interrogations can be like.

Officers armed with an arrest warrant say they just want to chat with a suspected drug dealer before taking him to jail. Officers who arrest a murder suspect at 3 a.m. leave her alone in the interrogation room to "give her a little time to think about the situation." A man suspected of calling and hanging up on his ex-girlfriend breaks down in tears when confronted by a policewoman, then leads officers to a gun he has illegally.

In two of the cases, from Nebraska and Missouri, questionings were started before the suspects were read their rights. In the third case, from Colorado, the suspect interrupted the Miranda warning and told the officer he already knew his rights.

Missouri's case arose from the second-degree murder conviction of Patrice Seibert, who implicated herself in a February 1997 fire at her mobile home in Rolla and was sentenced to life in prison.

Authorities contended the fire was set by Seibert's 17-year-old son and his friend -- at Seibert's direction -- to cover up the apparently natural death of her 12-year-old son, Jonathan, who had cerebral palsy. The fire killed Donald Rector, 17, who was on medication for a mental disorder and had been living at the house.

A Rolla police officer intentionally questioned Seibert without informing her of her Miranda rights. After Seibert acknowledged that Rector was supposed to die in the fire, the officer took a short break, informed her of her Miranda rights and renewed the questioning, referring to the initial interview to get Seibert to repeat her statements.

Only Seibert's second statement was used in her trial. The Missouri Supreme Court later overturned her conviction, ruling 4-3 that neither of Seibert's statements to police should have been allowed as evidence.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if the two-step interrogation process is improper when done deliberately by officers to try to get a confession. A 1985 court ruling dealt with the same subject, but the double questioning was not deliberate. Both people questioned twice were convicted.

The court will also consider if evidence obtained from people not read their rights can be used against them.

Even with Miranda warnings, an estimated 80 percent of suspects still talk to police, Kamisar said.

"When you read someone their rights, it goes in one ear and out the other," Johnson said. "The words have lost their meaning because they've become so common."

------

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/