Wednesday
Feb242010
Miranda Rights Fade Over Time, Rules High Court
In a unanimous ruling today, the Supreme Court held that criminal suspects who invoke their right to have an attorney present during questioning can be re-approached by police after a 14-day wait.
The case came up after Michael Shatzer made incriminating statements in 2006 about sexually abusing his son. Two and a half years earlier, Shatzer had been approached by police and questioned, but he had invoked his right to an attorney, and the police had ended questioning. After making the incriminating statements in 2006, Shatzer tried to avoid having those statements used against him at trial by arguing that his 2003 request for an attorney should have still been in effect, and police should not have approached him again.
Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the purpose of the rule requiring police to halt questioning is to prevent police from badgering a suspect into confessing. If a suspect is released from police custody and given time during which he could contact an attorney, the coercive effect of police questioning evaporates. In Shatzer’s case, the fact that Shatzer was in prison at the time—so his “release” was back into the prison population—was irrelevant.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote separately, agreeing that a two-and-a-half-year break in custody is long enough to prevent coercive effects, but disagreed with the majority’s establishment of a 14-day rule. Stevens argued for a case-by-case evaluation of the circumstances of each interrogation. The burden of having to determine these circumstances, Justice Scalia wrote, is overwhelming, and thus he says a 14-day period is a good enough rule.
The case came up after Michael Shatzer made incriminating statements in 2006 about sexually abusing his son. Two and a half years earlier, Shatzer had been approached by police and questioned, but he had invoked his right to an attorney, and the police had ended questioning. After making the incriminating statements in 2006, Shatzer tried to avoid having those statements used against him at trial by arguing that his 2003 request for an attorney should have still been in effect, and police should not have approached him again.
Writing for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the purpose of the rule requiring police to halt questioning is to prevent police from badgering a suspect into confessing. If a suspect is released from police custody and given time during which he could contact an attorney, the coercive effect of police questioning evaporates. In Shatzer’s case, the fact that Shatzer was in prison at the time—so his “release” was back into the prison population—was irrelevant.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote separately, agreeing that a two-and-a-half-year break in custody is long enough to prevent coercive effects, but disagreed with the majority’s establishment of a 14-day rule. Stevens argued for a case-by-case evaluation of the circumstances of each interrogation. The burden of having to determine these circumstances, Justice Scalia wrote, is overwhelming, and thus he says a 14-day period is a good enough rule.
tagged 
Miranda, Supreme Court in Frontpage 1, News/Commentary, Supreme Court
Miranda, Supreme Court in Frontpage 1, News/Commentary, Supreme Court
Reader Comments (1)
What the Supreme Court Justices said in most law enforcement cases, the Miranda Rule is never used in the first place. And in most states, should it be a case of someone accused by just word of mouth, and no facts. There is nothing ever done to find out whether it is true or not. They have gone from one extreme to another. By ignoring this issue for all these years, and letting Depts of Human Resources to be the one to primarily investigate in the first place. Then generally the law is totally ignored in DHS'a cases to where you are automatically guilty without even going to trial.