Justices to Weigh Miranda Limits

The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it would take up the Bush administration’s plea to limit the well-known Miranda ruling and allow the use of evidence that is found after police fail to fully warn a suspect of his right to remain silent.

The new case, to be heard in the fall, could affect everyday encounters between police and crime suspects and witnesses.

Since the Supreme Court’s 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona, police have been told that they must warn suspects and witnesses of their right to remain silent and their right to consult a lawyer. But the high court has not squarely decided what happens if a suspect’s Miranda rights are violated.

In Colorado Springs, Colo., police went to question Samuel F. Patane about calling his former girlfriend in violation of a domestic restraining order. Patane cut them off when they began to give him the Miranda warnings, saying he knew what his rights were. They then asked him about a gun he owned, and he said it was on a shelf in his bedroom.

Last year, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver said the gun could not be used as evidence against Patane because it was found after a Miranda violation. Police must recite the full Miranda warnings -- whether the suspect wants to hear them or not.

But U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson urged the court to reverse that decision. The Miranda rule bars only the use of a suspect’s “unwarned statements” in court, and not physical evidence, he said.

A pending California case also seeks to clarify the scope of the Miranda rule. The Oxnard police were accused of forcefully questioning a dying man in the hope of obtaining a confession from him, but he survived and sued the police.

At issue in that case is whether the Constitution forbids coercive questioning of unwilling suspects. The court heard arguments in December in the case, Chavez vs. Martinez, and a ruling is expected soon.

The two cases should clarify the scope of the Miranda decision. Among legal scholars and police experts, there are two quite different views.

One holds broadly that the Miranda decision set a constitutional rule, akin to the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. If police break into a house without a search warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment, the evidence that is found there cannot be used against the suspect.

Similarly, if police violate a suspect’s rights by questioning him without giving him the Miranda warnings, no evidence that is later found can be used by prosecutors, according to this broad view. The court in Denver adopted this view.

But the other, narrower approach holds that the Miranda warnings concern only statements to be used in a trial. Under this approach, any evidence found can be used against the suspect, even if police ignored his Miranda rights.

In two opinions in the 1970s, the Supreme Court suggested that evidence found in such situations could be used against the suspect.

But three years ago, the court upheld the Miranda warnings in an opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. He said the Miranda decision set a constitutional rule that could not be changed by Congress or state officials. Since then, judges have been split on whether they must throw out evidence if the police violated the suspect’s Miranda rights.

The answer has great practical significance, legal experts say: If police are told that evidence will be thrown out if they violate the Miranda rules, they will be forced to strictly respect a suspect’s rights. However, if there is no penalty for violations, police will be free to ignore the suspect’s right to remain silent.

In that case, Miranda “would be a hollow right,” said Deanne Maynard, a Washington lawyer who often represents the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

But prosecutors and police say it makes no sense to throw out solid evidence, particularly when suspects volunteer the information. Olson said it would “impose serious costs on the administration of justice” to require judges to strictly enforce the Miranda rules.

The case of U.S. vs. Patane will be decided early next year.