U.S. Supreme Court reopens debate over Miranda warnings

WASHINGTON -- A conflicted Supreme Court debated Tuesday how much leeway to give police who mistakenly or deliberately fail to give suspects the familiar warning beginning with "You have the right to remain silent."

Some of the justices are critics of the court's landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling, which requires the warnings. They have an opportunity to loosen restrictions on police in four cases this term. Cases from Colorado and Missouri were argued Tuesday.

Justices considered whether authorities could use evidence at trial if it was obtained from people who had not been told immediately of their Miranda rights; and whether police may question suspects before reading them their rights as part of a strategy to get information to use in a second interrogation.

The two cases show police have discovered ways to get around telling people they have a right to remain silent and see an attorney, public defender Jill Wichlens told the justices, part of a movement "to thumb their noses at this court's Miranda decision."

Justice Stephen Breyer told Wichlens that he was concerned about putting too many restrictions on front-line officers. "Is it fair to ask a policeman ... to be a lawyer?" he asked.

"He has to have attended Police Academy 101," she said.

Wichlens represents a Colorado man who was accused of harassing his ex-girlfriend. The woman told police he had a gun. When officers came to Samuel Patane's house to question him, they told him he had a right to remain silent, but he cut them off, saying he knew his rights. He then directed them to a gun in his bedroom and was charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the gun could not be used as evidence against Patane because its discovery was the result of a statement made without a Miranda warning.

Bush administration attorney Michael Dreeben said most other courts already allow evidence despite Miranda violations.

In the second case, considered to be a tougher case for the government, justices debated whether a lower court was wrong to throw out a woman's murder conviction because of police strategy in questioning her.

Police questioned Patrice Seibert twice, the first time without having read the Miranda warning. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the two-step process was improper.

"This tactic is bad for the police. It's bad for suspects. It's bad for courts. It has three strikes against it," said public defender Amy Bartholow, the attorney for Seibert.

Seibert was convicted of plotting to set a 1997 fire that killed a teenager who had been staying at the Seibert family trailer in Rolla, Mo. Police said she arranged to have her home burned to cover up the death of her 12-year-old son, who had cerebral palsy, to avoid neglect allegations.

Attorneys for Missouri and the Bush administration said double interrogations are not frequently done but should be allowed.

The Supreme Court, which reaffirmed Miranda in 2000, will hear arguments today in a third Miranda case, which involves an interrogation without the presence of a lawyer; and next spring in the fourth, which deals with the questioning of juvenile suspects.

The Tuesday cases are United States v. Patane, 02-1183, and Missouri v. Seibert, 02-1371.