Police Tactic to Sidestep Miranda Rights Rejected

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a dissent, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In the second case, U.S. v. Patane, No. 02-1183, the court ruled 5 to 4 that physical evidence gathered because of a suspect's statement made without a Miranda warning does not have to be excluded from a case.

In the case, a detective began advising Samuel Francis Patane of his rights when Patane, a convicted felon, was arrested. Patane interrupted the agent, saying that he already knew his rights, and then directed the agent where to find a .40-caliber pistol. Patane sought to have that evidence excluded from his trial for illegal possession of a firearm.

The Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed that the gun should be excluded.

But the high court overturned that ruling. Writing for the court, Thomas said that excluding physical evidence derived from an unwarned statement would be an unlawful extension of Miranda. His decision was joined by Rehnquist and Scalia.

Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion, joined by O'Connor. Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg dissented; Breyer dissented separately.

"There is, of course, a price for excluding evidence, but the Fifth Amendment is worth a price," Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg said. "There is no way to read this case except as an unjustifiable invitation to law enforcement officers to flout Miranda when there may be physical evidence to be gained."

Civil liberties advocates said the decision ending the double questioning of suspects was extraordinarily important. But they said they are worried that the Patane ruling could help erode its impact by encouraging police to avoid Miranda if they need to find crucial evidence -- a position endorsed by the four dissenting members of the court.

"It's a very mixed message," said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union and an expert on Miranda rights. "On one hand, the court has wisely closed the door on police strategies designed to induce improper confessions. On the other hand, the court may be encouraging similar strategies in cases where they care less about a confession and more about the evidence they can obtain through a coerced confession."