Ruling Favors Police In Interrogation Case
Associated Press - WASHINGTON POST
Wednesday, May 28, 2003; Page A04
I think they are going to weaken Miranda this coming session. I will have to wait and see what they do before I judge it.
A fractured Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a police sergeant did not violate the rights of a gravely wounded farm worker by interrogating him at the hospital without reading him his Miranda rights.
But Oliverio Martinez may still be allowed to collect damages on the grounds that his constitutional due-process rights were violated by the 1997 questioning, the court said in sending the case back to California for more consideration.
The ruling means that police officers cannot be sued for failing to read someone his or her rights, known as Miranda rights, if the person is never prosecuted, the attorney for the sergeant said.
"Police officers are less likely to be second-guessed when they're discharging a very hard job under complicated and high-pressure circumstances," lawyer Lawrence Robbins said.
Martinez was shot five times by Oxnard, Calif., police and then subjected to a lengthy interrogation as he awaited medical treatment. He was never told of his rights, and he said police Sgt. Ben Chavez kept questioning him even after he said he did not want to answer.
Martinez, who was left blind and paralyzed, later sued the City of Oxnard and Chavez, alleging among other things that the officer's questioning, which did not include reading Martinez his rights, amounted to an attempt at coerced self-incrimination -- even though Martinez was not eventually charged with a crime.
Justice John Paul Stevens compared the interrogation to "an attempt to obtain an involuntary confession from a prisoner by torturous methods."
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in part of the ruling, said that Chavez did not violate Martinez's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia. Justice David H. Souter agreed in a separate opinion, joined by Stephen G. Breyer.
An appeals court had ruled that police coerced a confession from Martinez, in violation of his rights, and that his statement could not be used as evidence in his civil trial. Justices disagreed.
Attorneys for Martinez said he was in excruciating pain and begged the officer to leave him alone. According to a transcript of the interview, Martinez told the lawman: "I am choking. I am dying, please." The officer replied: "If you are going to die, tell me what happened."
The Supreme Court is expected to take a broad look at Miranda warnings, which begin with, "You have the right to remain silent," in the term that begins this fall. Justices have chosen three cases to review.
washingtonpost.com |
