Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
©Washington Post
© St. Petersburg Times, published June 27, 2000
WASHINGTON -- Refusing to overturn more than three decades of established law enforcement practice, the Supreme Court on Monday strongly reaffirmed its landmark Miranda decision, which requires police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney during interrogation.
In a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the high court ruled that the requirement that criminal suspects be read their "Miranda rights" is rooted in the Constitution and cannot be overturned by an act of Congress. Federal lawmakers passed legislation seeking to undo the Miranda decision in 1968, two years after the ruling.
The seven justices in the majority left open the question of whether they would have reached the same conclusion as the original five-justice Miranda majority about the constitutional rights of criminal suspects. But citing the court's long tradition of respect for precedent, the justices said there were compelling reasons not to overrule it now.
"Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture," wrote Rehnquist, a frequent and vocal critic of the Miranda decision during his earlier years on the bench.
The court's two most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented. In a scathing opinion, Scalia called the Miranda decision "preposterous" and vowed to continue to apply the 1968 law invalidated Monday to cases that reach the high court.
Civil liberties organizations hailed the decision, but Paul G. Cassell, a University of Utah law school professor who has spent years seeking to undo the Miranda decision, said Monday was "a sad day for victims of crime and law-abiding Americans."
"The tragic result of today's opinion will be that thousands of confessed, dangerous criminals will go free merely because some police officers have made a mistake in following the highly technical Miranda rules," added Cassell, who argued the case for overturning the Miranda decision before the high court.
Yale Kamisar, a University of Michigan law school professor and staunch defender of the Miranda decision, said that as a result of Monday's ruling, "Miranda warnings" will become an even more deeply ingrained part of the criminal justice system. He said it was particularly important that a decisive majority reaffirmed the 1966 ruling and that the majority opinion was written by Rehnquist, a longtime Miranda critic.
"Now Miranda is stronger than it ever was, which is the last thing people like Cassell wanted," Kamisar said. "I would think that if a President (George W.) Bush got elected and appointed three new justices, they would have a much harder time overturning Miranda than if this case had never reached the court. You gave it your best shot and you lost by a much bigger vote than anybody expected."
Kasimar added that Rehnquist's authorship of the majority opinion should mean "it will be received better by the country and by the police."
"After all, this is the guy who over the years has been more pro-police than anyone on the Supreme Court."
Attorney General Janet Reno added, "Most importantly, (Miranda) will continue to provide a public sense of fairness in our criminal justice system."
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Miranda vs. Arizona was one of the most far-reaching and famous decisions in the history of criminal jurisprudence. Under its doctrine, criminal suspects are told that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, that they have the right to an attorney during questioning and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for them.
Repeated countless times in television and motion picture police dramas, the Miranda warnings over the years have become one of the best-known aspects of the criminal justice system.
But the Miranda decision was highly controversial at the time. Two years after it was handed down, Congress enacted a law that was intended to nullify it. It did not require suspects to be told of their rights and left trial judges to determine whether a confession was voluntary. The 1968 law, however, was never enforced by a succession of Democratic and Republican administrations that doubted its constitutionality.
The Justice Department, which normally defends laws enacted by Congress, in this case came down on the side of the 34-year-old Supreme Court decision. In their briefs, Reno and Justice Department officials contended that Miranda is "in many respects beneficial to law enforcement" because it provides a clear rule for police to follow.