Court Lets Stand Ruling on Violation of Miranda Rights

A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Monday denied a request by the Los Angeles and Santa Monica police departments to rehear a case in which the court held that their policies of questioning suspects after they invoke their right to remain silent violated suspects’ constitutional rights.

None of the 21 active judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over nine western states including California, voted to rehear a Nov. 8 decision by a three-judge panel in the case of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice vs. Butts.

The panel held that both departments had questioned suspects in a manner that violated the landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miranda vs. Arizona, which established that a defendant had a right to remain silent and had to be warned that anything he said could be used against him.

Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, who served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, praised Monday’s action.

“The failure of the Los Angeles and Santa Monica police departments to secure even a single vote from any 9th Circuit judge in support of their petition for rehearing is a stinging repudiation of their efforts to subvert the Supreme Court’s mandate in Miranda,” Rosenbaum said. “Apparently, respect for the Constitution was not on the LAPD or SMPD’s list of New Year’s resolutions.”

Debra L. Gonzales, deputy city attorney for Los Angeles, said it was likely that the city would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling. The Times was unable to obtain immediate comment from the Santa Monica city attorney’s office.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of two men, each of whom repeatedly asked for a lawyer during interrogation. In both cases, police ignored their requests, continuing to ask questions while assuring the suspects that nothing they said could be used to convict them. Later, however, statements the two men made were indeed presented in court.

The suit challenged what it described as a common police practice of continuing to interrogate suspects even after they had clearly invoked their right to remain silent or their right to consult with an attorney. The suit sought to redress the alleged deprivation of the defendants’ rights under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie rejected contentions of the officers that the case should be dismissed on grounds that they were immune from liability. If the 9th Circuit’s ruling is not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the case will be sent back to Rafeedie for a trial that will examine just what the officers did and whether damages can be assessed against them.

The 9th Circuit action comes at a time when so-called Miranda rights have become a controversial subject.

In 1998, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Miranda case did not establish a constitutional right but merely a nonbinding procedural right. The defendant in that case asked the Supreme Court to review the decision. The high court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case in late March.

Two months ago, in response to the Virginia ruling, the Clinton administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court strongly supporting a broad interpretation of the scope of the Miranda decision.

The brief, signed by Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, Solicitor Gen. Seth P. Waxman and several other Justice Department lawyers, asks the Supreme Court to reaffirm that Miranda “has come to play a unique and important role in the nation’s conception of our criminal justice system.”