Welcome Boost for Miranda Rule

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1966 Miranda decision is clear: A suspect held by police must be explicitly warned that he has the right to remain silent, to consult counsel and to have his lawyer with him during questioning. Statements that police obtain by violating these rules are generally inadmissible as evidence.

Though the Miranda warning has become a staple of TV cop shows, on the street the court’s prudent ruling has been eroded since 1966. For that reason, Monday’s federal appeals court decision lambasting deliberate efforts by some police departments to ignore the Miranda guidelines is particularly welcome.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Los Angeles and Santa Monica police department policies allowing officers to continue questioning suspects after they invoke their right to remain silent violate constitutional rights and expose the officers to civil liability.

Miranda has never been absolute, but neither has the landmark decision been a mere suggestion to police departments. The Miranda ruling was recognition that many suspects were falsely accused and that confessions could be--and often were--extracted in the back rooms of police stations through intimidation or worse. That state of affairs is as true in 1999 as it was in 1966.

So the police practice in a number of American cities of training officers to continue questioning suspects after they have been warned of their Miranda rights is particularly troubling. In California, the practice has become common enough to prompt Assemblyman Scott Baugh (R-Huntington Beach) to draft legislation explicitly barring it. Baugh put his bill aside when he became Assembly minority leader earlier this year, but he should revive it.

The 9th Circuit’s decision comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a direct legal challenge to Miranda. The case involves a 1968 federal law essentially reversing Miranda but long ignored by the Justice Department and, until recently, by courts. The Justice Department’s position, a proper one, is that Miranda “is of constitutional dimension” and “cannot be superseded merely by legislation.” The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to review a Virginia federal appeals court ruling holding that the 1968 law left Miranda as a nonbinding procedural right. We urge the high court to look to Monday’s ruling for guidance.