Score one for the police.
A crime suspect who invokes his “right to remain silent” under the famous Miranda decision can be questioned again after 14 days, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. And if he freely agrees to talk then, his incriminatory statements can be used against him.
In a 9-0 decision in a Maryland child-abuse case, the high court overturned a rule set in 1981 that barred the police from questioning a suspect once he had asked to remain silent and to speak with a lawyer.
Known as the “Edwards rule,” it was intended to prevent investigators from “badgering” a suspect who was held in jail after he had invoked his Miranda rights. In some cases, police had awakened a suspect in the middle of the night and asked him again to waive his rights and to admit to a crime.
In recent years, the rule has been understood to prevent police from ever requestioning a freed suspect, even for other crimes in other places. The justices said Wednesday that although the rule made sense for suspects who were held in jail, it did not make sense for suspects who had gone free.
“In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, the consequence [of this no-further-questioning rule] is disastrous,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.
If there has been a “break in custody” and the suspect has gone free, Scalia said, the police should be allowed to speak with him after some period of time.
“It seems to us that period is 14 days,” he said. “That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life [and] to consult with friends and counsel.”
Then, if the suspect waives his rights and agrees to talk, any statement he makes can be used against him, the court said.
The ruling in Maryland vs. Shatzer reinstates a child-abuse conviction against a Maryland man who made incriminatory statements to a state investigator 2 1/2 years after he had first been questioned by police.
Maryland v. Shatzer
Maryland v. Shatzer
‘Miranda’ dealt one-two punch by high court
Court says inmate’s lawyer request no longer valid
Supreme Court rules that request for lawyer in questioning has expiration
Supreme Court hands police another victory in Miranda cases
High Court Sets Time Limit on Lawyer Request
Court Says Miranda Rights Don’t Bar Requestioning
Supreme Court eases rules for questioning suspects
Supreme Court: Police can question suspect after release
Miranda Rights Last for 14 Days, High Court Says
High court overturns Maryland child molestation decision
Edwards v. Arizona
Hooray for the Supreme Court, and it was a unanimous decision no less! Good deal, Miranda could use a good pruning. Ever since the uber liberal Warren Court pulled the Miranda warning scheme out of thin air, criminals have had way too much of an advantage over law enforcement when it comes to questioning.
/seriously, if a criminal is too stupid to know that they don’t have to confess to the police, they deserve to go to prison anyway, just for being that dumb
Filed under: Blog Entry | Tagged: Crime, U.S. Supreme Court, Maryland, Child Abuse, Police, Law Enforcement, Lawyer, Right To Remain Silent, Maryland Vs. Shatzer, Conviction, Waiver, Counsel, Break In Custody, Antonin Scalia, Repeat Offenders, Police Questioning, Criminal, Edwards Rule, Suspect, Unanimous, Miranda, Miranda Warning, 14 Days, Edwards V. Arizona, Criminal Law, Warren Court | Leave a comment »