AP - Court To Decide On Miranda Warning

Slowpoke_Rodrigo · April 19, 2000, 08:45 AM

STORY

Court To Decide on Miranda Warning
By RICHARD CARELLI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- ''You have the right to remain silent'' -- a police warning recited countless times daily and made familiar to generations of Americans by movies and television -- is on trial in the Supreme Court.

After hearing arguments today, the justices must decide whether police still must warn criminal suspects about their right against self-incrimination before questioning them.

Such warnings have been required ever since the Supreme Court's landmark 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona, but a federal appeals court ruling last year threw Miranda's future into doubt.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Congress effectively overturned Miranda when it enacted a 1968 law.

The long-ignored law, known as Section 3501, means failure to give such warnings no longer requires automatic exclusion of incriminating statements as trial evidence, the appeals court ruled in the case of a Maryland man accused of robbing banks in Maryland and Virginia.

Today's argument session drew an unusually large crowd of persons seeking a place among the some 200 seats available to the public.

First in line were four District of Columbia high school students who arrived at 7 p.m. Tuesday and camped out overnight. ''We've studied the case in our honors Supreme Court class,'' said Aaron Pearl, a Field School junior. ''We know it's a blockbuster case.''

By 9 a.m., the line of people seeking entry stretched across the expansive plaza in front of the court building and down First Street toward the Capitol.

The Clinton administration refuses to defend the 1968 law. ''Confidence of the public in the fairness of the criminal justice system ... may be expected to suffer if Miranda were overruled,'' Justice Department lawyers have told the court.

Opponents of the Miranda ruling blame it for letting some criminals go free.

They invoke a 1994 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, in which he said federal prosecutors' failure to invoke Section 3501 ''may have produced -- during an era of intense national concern about the problem of runaway crime -- the acquittal and the nonprosecution of many dangerous felons. ... There is no excuse for this.''

The justices will take an initial vote behind closed doors Friday, and their decision is expected by late June.

The court, far more liberal 34 years ago than it is today, sought to remedy ''inherently coercive'' interrogations by creating bright-line guidelines in its Miranda ruling. Courts previously had used a ''totality-of-the-circumstances test'' to determine whether a confession or incriminating statement had been given to police voluntarily.

Section 3501 returns the law to pre-Miranda days, stating ''the presence or absence'' of any factor such as a Miranda warning ''need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness.''

Charles Dickerson of Takoma Park, Md., reportedly made several incriminating statements to FBI agents after being arrested and charged with seven bank robberies. He says he did not receive a proper Miranda warning.

Neither Dickerson nor the federal prosecutors who had opposed his appeal to the 4th Circuit court focused on the 1968 law. But University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell, representing the conservative Washington Legal Foundation as a friend of the court, sought to revive the dormant Section 3501. He won before the 4th Circuit court, spurring Dickerson's Supreme Court appeal.

The justices have received plenty of unsolicited advice in the form of friend-of-the-court briefs.

Among those arguing for the Miranda ruling's continued vitality are the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the House Democratic leadership.

Among those urging the court to uphold the appeals court's ruling are the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Police Organizations and 10 Republican senators.

Also siding with Cassell are 17 states: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.

The case is Dickerson vs. U.S., 99-5525.

------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...

Vote for the Neal Knox 13

Monkeyleg · April 19, 2000, 01:42 PM

"Among those arguing for the Miranda ruling's continued vitality are the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the House Democratic leadership."

I still haven't decided where I stand on this, but those groups give me pause.

Dick

6forsure · April 21, 2000, 01:36 PM

hope it stays. the government is too powerfull already, no since in giving those that enforce the government's rules more power.

Gorthaur · April 21, 2000, 03:11 PM

As long as the 4th and 5th amendmends aren't violated, it seems a little silly to say that the cops have to say exactly those words. On the other hand, I haven't read the Miranda ruling, so I don't know what it mandates.

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

dog3 · April 21, 2000, 04:06 PM

Gorthaur, Monkeyleg;

Ever heard of Dougerty?

It's part and principal on the rights held
by a jury. Contains the ground work for jury
nullification. It's basicly wherein you or I
as jurors get to tell the judge to stuff it.

Never heard of it eh? Not suprised. There is no law compelling the state to tell you the juror what power you have. So guess what? The Judge doesn't waste time with all that crap, he gives the jury instructions, (which they may ignore under law) and runs his little kingdom.

This is how it will be with the 4th and 5th as soon as we can get this silly little nuisance of Miranda outta the way.

Same thing. No different.

Futo Inu · April 21, 2000, 05:46 PM

Very interesting indeed, because regardless of what you think of whether Miranda warnings should be given (I do), the issue here is really

"Tough luck; If you don't like it, have Congress repeal the 68 law to reinstate the exclusionary rule"

vs.

"Congress can't legislate in this area to trump the Miranda requirements, because they're part of the 4th Am/Const., so the 68 law is unconst. and void ab initio"

bruels · April 21, 2000, 09:34 PM

The 17.5 years I worked in law enforcement, Miranda did not pose a problem. Miranda only applied if I asked a suspect in custody a question. If I didn't ask any questions and the suspect chose to run his mouth, I just took note of what he said and included it in my report.

Several times I was just asking the suspect the usual booking questions. Name, date of birth, address, occupation, etc.. If he volunteered information above and beyond covered by those questions, I didn't ask for clarification or advise him to stop. It was completely voluntary on his part.

There were times where the suspect would tell me I couldn't use that information because I didn't read him his rights. I would just smile and take note of everything he said.

Miranda is not a problem. Anyway, it is best to not ask a question of a suspect unless you already know the answer.

alan · April 22, 2000, 12:16 AM

Without regard to whatever ruling The USSC might come up with in this case, one fact remains. In any offical dealings one might have with the police, THE LESS SAID, THE BETTER.

Others might have a different take, and they can act as they feel is right. They have my best wishes, however I'm given to recall a comment attributed to Abe Lincoln, I think. "Most people look and sound a lot smarter with their mouths shut".

mrat · April 22, 2000, 01:54 AM

I agree with Alan, keep your mouth shut. I am an LEO and if I was questioned about a serious crime my response would be silence. My experience has been that the quilty parties are busy trying to prove their innocence so Miranda doesn't have any effect on I do my job, they are going to talk anyway.

G50AE · April 22, 2000, 11:18 PM

You should never speak to a law enforcement officer unless you have your attorney present. Part of the problem with our system is that people do not understand the fact that when a police officer is asking you a question, he is most likely looking for an excuse to arrest you or charge you with a crime.

mrat · April 23, 2000, 01:46 AM

G50AE,
Don't you think you are being a little dramatic? I have never met LEOs that go around asking people a question so they can find an "excuse" to arrest them. Contrary to your obvious belief that LEOs are cruising around looking for an excuse to arrest someone, what we are talking about here is questioning a person about in connection with a crime that has been committed.

[This message has been edited by mrat (edited April 23, 2000).]

April 19, 2000, 08:45 AM	#1
Slowpoke_Rodrigo Senior Member Join Date: May 23, 1999 Posts: 612	STORY Court To Decide on Miranda Warning By RICHARD CARELLI, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- ''You have the right to remain silent'' -- a police warning recited countless times daily and made familiar to generations of Americans by movies and television -- is on trial in the Supreme Court. After hearing arguments today, the justices must decide whether police still must warn criminal suspects about their right against self-incrimination before questioning them. Such warnings have been required ever since the Supreme Court's landmark 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona, but a federal appeals court ruling last year threw Miranda's future into doubt. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Congress effectively overturned Miranda when it enacted a 1968 law. The long-ignored law, known as Section 3501, means failure to give such warnings no longer requires automatic exclusion of incriminating statements as trial evidence, the appeals court ruled in the case of a Maryland man accused of robbing banks in Maryland and Virginia. Today's argument session drew an unusually large crowd of persons seeking a place among the some 200 seats available to the public. First in line were four District of Columbia high school students who arrived at 7 p.m. Tuesday and camped out overnight. ''We've studied the case in our honors Supreme Court class,'' said Aaron Pearl, a Field School junior. ''We know it's a blockbuster case.'' By 9 a.m., the line of people seeking entry stretched across the expansive plaza in front of the court building and down First Street toward the Capitol. The Clinton administration refuses to defend the 1968 law. ''Confidence of the public in the fairness of the criminal justice system ... may be expected to suffer if Miranda were overruled,'' Justice Department lawyers have told the court. Opponents of the Miranda ruling blame it for letting some criminals go free. They invoke a 1994 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, in which he said federal prosecutors' failure to invoke Section 3501 ''may have produced -- during an era of intense national concern about the problem of runaway crime -- the acquittal and the nonprosecution of many dangerous felons. ... There is no excuse for this.'' The justices will take an initial vote behind closed doors Friday, and their decision is expected by late June. The court, far more liberal 34 years ago than it is today, sought to remedy ''inherently coercive'' interrogations by creating bright-line guidelines in its Miranda ruling. Courts previously had used a ''totality-of-the-circumstances test'' to determine whether a confession or incriminating statement had been given to police voluntarily. Section 3501 returns the law to pre-Miranda days, stating ''the presence or absence'' of any factor such as a Miranda warning ''need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness.'' Charles Dickerson of Takoma Park, Md., reportedly made several incriminating statements to FBI agents after being arrested and charged with seven bank robberies. He says he did not receive a proper Miranda warning. Neither Dickerson nor the federal prosecutors who had opposed his appeal to the 4th Circuit court focused on the 1968 law. But University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell, representing the conservative Washington Legal Foundation as a friend of the court, sought to revive the dormant Section 3501. He won before the 4th Circuit court, spurring Dickerson's Supreme Court appeal. The justices have received plenty of unsolicited advice in the form of friend-of-the-court briefs. Among those arguing for the Miranda ruling's continued vitality are the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the House Democratic leadership. Among those urging the court to uphold the appeals court's ruling are the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Police Organizations and 10 Republican senators. Also siding with Cassell are 17 states: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia. The case is Dickerson vs. U.S., 99-5525. ------------------ Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon... Vote for the Neal Knox 13

April 19, 2000, 01:42 PM	#2
Monkeyleg Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2000 Posts: 4,621	"Among those arguing for the Miranda ruling's continued vitality are the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the House Democratic leadership." I still haven't decided where I stand on this, but those groups give me pause. Dick

April 21, 2000, 01:36 PM	#3
6forsure Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2000 Posts: 217	hope it stays. the government is too powerfull already, no since in giving those that enforce the government's rules more power.

April 21, 2000, 03:11 PM	#4
Gorthaur Senior Member Join Date: January 19, 2000 Posts: 851	As long as the 4th and 5th amendmends aren't violated, it seems a little silly to say that the cops have to say exactly those words. On the other hand, I haven't read the Miranda ruling, so I don't know what it mandates. ------------------ Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

April 21, 2000, 04:06 PM	#5
dog3 Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 1999 Posts: 195	Gorthaur, Monkeyleg; Ever heard of Dougerty? It's part and principal on the rights held by a jury. Contains the ground work for jury nullification. It's basicly wherein you or I as jurors get to tell the judge to stuff it. Never heard of it eh? Not suprised. There is no law compelling the state to tell you the juror what power you have. So guess what? The Judge doesn't waste time with all that crap, he gives the jury instructions, (which they may ignore under law) and runs his little kingdom. This is how it will be with the 4th and 5th as soon as we can get this silly little nuisance of Miranda outta the way. Same thing. No different.

April 21, 2000, 05:46 PM	#6
Futo Inu Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 1999 Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA Posts: 3,629	Very interesting indeed, because regardless of what you think of whether Miranda warnings should be given (I do), the issue here is really "Tough luck; If you don't like it, have Congress repeal the 68 law to reinstate the exclusionary rule" vs. "Congress can't legislate in this area to trump the Miranda requirements, because they're part of the 4th Am/Const., so the 68 law is unconst. and void ab initio"

April 21, 2000, 09:34 PM	#7
bruels Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 1998 Location: Hayden, ID, USA Posts: 1,108	The 17.5 years I worked in law enforcement, Miranda did not pose a problem. Miranda only applied if I asked a suspect in custody a question. If I didn't ask any questions and the suspect chose to run his mouth, I just took note of what he said and included it in my report. Several times I was just asking the suspect the usual booking questions. Name, date of birth, address, occupation, etc.. If he volunteered information above and beyond covered by those questions, I didn't ask for clarification or advise him to stop. It was completely voluntary on his part. There were times where the suspect would tell me I couldn't use that information because I didn't read him his rights. I would just smile and take note of everything he said. Miranda is not a problem. Anyway, it is best to not ask a question of a suspect unless you already know the answer.

April 22, 2000, 12:16 AM	#8
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,284	Without regard to whatever ruling The USSC might come up with in this case, one fact remains. In any offical dealings one might have with the police, THE LESS SAID, THE BETTER. Others might have a different take, and they can act as they feel is right. They have my best wishes, however I'm given to recall a comment attributed to Abe Lincoln, I think. "Most people look and sound a lot smarter with their mouths shut".

April 22, 2000, 01:54 AM	#9
mrat Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2000 Posts: 864	I agree with Alan, keep your mouth shut. I am an LEO and if I was questioned about a serious crime my response would be silence. My experience has been that the quilty parties are busy trying to prove their innocence so Miranda doesn't have any effect on I do my job, they are going to talk anyway.

April 22, 2000, 11:18 PM	#10
G50AE Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2000 Posts: 275	You should never speak to a law enforcement officer unless you have your attorney present. Part of the problem with our system is that people do not understand the fact that when a police officer is asking you a question, he is most likely looking for an excuse to arrest you or charge you with a crime.

April 23, 2000, 01:46 AM	#11
mrat Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2000 Posts: 864	G50AE, Don't you think you are being a little dramatic? I have never met LEOs that go around asking people a question so they can find an "excuse" to arrest them. Contrary to your obvious belief that LEOs are cruising around looking for an excuse to arrest someone, what we are talking about here is questioning a person about in connection with a crime that has been committed. [This message has been edited by mrat (edited April 23, 2000).]