WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court narrowly upheld the Miranda warnings yesterday, ruling that police officers may not use confessions that they have obtained by questioning a suspect first and warning her of her rights to remain silent afterward.
In a 5-4 decision, the court called the police tactic a deliberate effort to skirt the Miranda decision. They threw out a Missouri woman's confession to plotting to cover up the death of her disabled child by setting her mobile home on fire.
But in a second 5-4 decision, the court upheld the use of physical evidence, such as a gun, which was obtained by questioning a suspect without fully warning him of his rights.
In the first case, the justices said they were troubled that the police in this case - and in others from California - believed that they could fool a suspect into confessing before warning her of her rights.
If the Miranda decision is going to stand, police cannot evade it so easily, the court said.
"A suspect could hardly think he had a genuine right to remain silent" if he is told about it after confessing," said Justice David H. Souter.
"The Miranda rule has become an important and accepted element of the criminal justice system," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and a "deliberate violation of Miranda" cannot stand.
In recent years, police in some states have been encouraged in training sessions to question a suspect in hopes of learning what happened. Then, if the suspect admits involvement, the officer gives him the warnings that his words may be used against him in court. If the suspect then agrees to repeat the confession, his words may be used in court, or so trainers had suggested.
But in Missouri vs. Seibert, the Supreme Court said this "deliberate two-step strategy" violates the Constitution and its right against self-incrimination. Joining Souter and Kennedy in the majority were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
In the second 5-4 decision, the court said "reliable" physical evidence should not be thrown out simply because it was obtained from a suspect who had not waived his rights.
Also yesterday, the court said that it would hear the Bush administration's claim that federal drug agents have the authority to arrest seriously ill Californians who use home-grown marijuana to relieve their pain. The court agreed to hear an appeal filed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who contends that federal law prohibits the use of marijuana "in all instances."
The case, to be heard in the fall, poses a clash between the strict federal drug laws and the California voters' initiative that allows patients to use marijuana on the advice of their doctor.
The Los Angeles Times is a Tribune Publishing newspaper.
