Supreme Court torn over cases involving Miranda rights

By Stephen Henderson
Knight Ridder Newspapers

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

In arguments for two cases that experts say strike at the heart of so-called Miranda rights, the justices pondered whether violations of the 37-year-old warning — "You have the right to remain silent ... " — should carry serious consequences or be written off as harmless errors.

The Bush administration and Missouri officials told the court that police should be allowed to use such statements and evidence, even if officers initially conducted interrogations without reading suspects their rights. The value of that evidence in winning proper verdicts outweighs the procedural nature of the Miranda violations, they said.

Attorneys for a Colorado man and a Missouri woman, however, warned that a ruling in favor of the government might lead to "disastrous" disregard of the rules.

"Already you have police departments in California telling their officers not to worry about Miranda violations," said Jill Wichlens, an assistant federal public defender.

The two cases yesterday and a third to be argued today comprise the court's most serious consideration of criminal procedure rules in more than two years. All three cases this term test whether the court's "fruit-of-the-poisonous tree" doctrine, which requires evidence obtained after a constitutional violation to be jettisoned, always applies to Miranda.

In yesterday's first case, a Colorado man said a gun he told police they'd find in his bedroom shouldn't be admitted as evidence against him because he interrupted police while they were reading his rights. The officer never finished the warning.

In the second case, Patrice Seibert, of Missouri, said the police shouldn't be able to use her taped confession because they interrogated her for nearly an hour before reading her rights. The officer said he conducted the two-staged interrogation — one unwarned and one warned — because trainers taught him to do it that way.

Amy Bartholow, a public defender for Seibert, said the government's behavior was especially problematic because the prosecution would be able to present the taped confession without acknowledging the unwarned interrogation used to get it.

Government officials said Miranda was intended to protect suspects from police coercion, and since neither case involved coercion, the Miranda failings weren't significant enough to suppress evidence.

Some justices seemed uncomfortable with the government's arguments. "That would provide tremendous incentive for police to run around Miranda," Justice Stephen Breyer said. He said it could return the nation to the pre-Miranda days of aggressive and sometimes brutal police interrogations.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the Miranda rule has the phrase "inform at once" written all over it and government officials seemed to be changing that to "don't inform until you have enough."

But other justices leaned toward the government's side. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out that only one federal appeals circuit court has said this kind of evidence must be excluded because of a Miranda violation.

Also yesterday:

The court ruled 7-2 in a long-running dispute that Virginia may withdraw water from the Potomac River to supply suburbs without getting permission from neighboring Maryland. Maryland owns the Potomac under a 1632 land grant from King Charles I, but a 1785 compact between the states gave Virginia certain water rights.

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company