Miranda rights still called for by court

Voluntary statements made by criminal suspects could be dismissed as evidence if suspects are not read Miranda warnings by law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court ruled on June 26.
The court made the decision after hearing the case of Charles Dickerson, a Takoma Park, Md. man who reportedly made incriminating statements to FBI agents after being arrested and charged with seven bank robberies. Dickerson said the agents did not give him his proper Miranda warnings and charges against him were dismissed.
"The result of this case is that incriminating statements would be suppressed, to deter officers from interrogating suspects without reading them their constitutional rights," said Michael Steinberg, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
The case first went to court in December, when the 4th Circuit of the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda waivers are no longer required when officers are interrogating suspects who are in custody. The court's ruling was based on a 1968 provision which said a defendant's statement is admissible in federal court if the statement was given voluntarily, regardless of whether the defendant waived his or her Miranda rights.
The provision had not been contested until the Dickerson case. The Miranda warnings, created in 1966, state that suspects must be told that anything they say may be used against them, they can remain silent or have a lawyer's help while answering and that a lawyer will be appointed to help them if they cannot afford to hire one.
"What led to the Miranda decision was that police officers were coercing suspects into making incriminating statements without the suspects being aware of their rights. This resulted in statements that were not voluntarily made," Steinberg said. "In order to insure that confessions and incriminating statements were voluntarily and knowingly made, the courts said the reading must be made."
The Constitution's Fifth Amendment states, "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Before the Dickerson decision, courts had used a "totality-of-the-circumstances" test to determine whether a confession or incriminating statement had been given to police voluntarily.
Steinberg said the ACLU in Washington, D.C. filed a friend of the court brief in the case in support of the Miranda warnings. The ACLU is the nation's oldest and largest civil liberties organization devoted to protecting the basic civil liberties of all Americans.
In the June 26 decision, the Supreme Court said "cases in which a defendant can make a colorable argument that a self-incriminating statement was compelled despite officers' adherence to Miranda are rare."
CMU Police Capt. Ron Williams said he disagrees.
"It's simply not the case. It does happen, but there are lots and lots of people who make incriminating statements after they've been read their Miranda rights."
But Williams said he doesn't think the court ruling places an undue burden on law officials.
"I don't have a problem or a concern with officers giving suspects their Miranda warnings whenever courts have deemed that they should be given. I know a lot of law enforcement people who believe it's a real hindrance, but I don't believe it's nearly the hindrance that some others think it is."
Williams said he cannot recall any incidents where criminal suspects have accused a CMU police officer of not reading Miranda warnings to them.
Mount Pleasant Police Officer Tim Hunt said all officers in the department are aware of the warning and know when to use it.
"The only time we have to read the Miranda warning is when someone is arrested or is a prime suspect in an investigation," he said.
Hunt, who has served with the department for 13 years, said the only people who have claimed Miranda warnings were not given to them have been drunk drivers.
"We don't have to interrogate a drunk driver. It's a done deal. A lot of times they're belligerent and they get mad and say we didn't read them their rights. And we agree with that.
"I think there's a misconception because of television."
When the warnings must be given, the person under arrest will sign a waiver saying they understand their rights, Hunt said. The waiver is then attached to the police report.
"I think many law enforcement agencies have stated that they don't have a problem informing suspects of their rights before interrogating them," Steinberg said. "But I suppose some see it as an obstacle to obtaining confessions. It's the position of the ACLU that the government should not be in the business of hiding constitutional rights or the rights of suspects."
The National Association of Police Organizations, a Washington D.C. based coalition of police unions and associations from across the United States, filed a brief against the court's Miranda ruling.
"Miranda has become a vehicle inviting routine efforts to exclude voluntary confessions, and the Dickerson case will only increase the amount of litigation on this point in state and federal courts," said NAPO Executive Director Robert Scully.
"Under the rigid application of the Miranda formula in this case, both the absence of any coercion by the police during a custodial interrogation and the completely voluntary nature of a suspect's incriminating statement are of little significance whatsoever."
But Steinberg said "If a police officer has overwhelming evidence that someone is guilty, he or she shouldn't be afraid of reading their rights before interrogating them."
The Miranda warnings were created in 1966, after a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix and taken into police custody. A victim of rape and kidnapping identified him as the perpetrator. The police then brought Miranda into the interrogation room, questioned him for two hours and received a signed confession.
The Supreme Court later found in favor of Miranda because he was not informed of his right to an attorney nor was his privilege against self-incrimination protected.