Should the high court restrict a suspect's right to remain silent? Soon it could be, "you have the right to remain silent--after the police question you." The Supreme Court will decide this year.

• Author: Bress, Frank
• Position: Opinion

YES

In 1966, the Supreme Court issued the Miranda decision, requiring police to tell criminal suspects of their right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. While well-intentioned (it's designed to prevent police misconduct), the Miranda warning requirement can be taken to extremes that can hobble police work and threaten just outcomes in court.

The idea behind the Miranda warning is that once a suspect is in police custody--and Miranda only applies when the suspect has been arrested--the person has a right to know he or she does not have to talk to the police

The Supreme Court is often asked to clarify just how far police must go to protect a suspect's rights during interrogation. This year, it's reviewing a Missouri case in which a woman was questioned by police without being read her rights, then subsequently read her rights and reinterviewed. A lower court allowed the second set of statements to be used as evidence, but not the first. The case has wound its way to the nation's highest court, which must decide if this two-step interrogation process is legitimate. I believe this kind of interrogation should be allowed even if it narrows the scope of the Miranda ruling.

The Miranda ruling has at times been taken to ridiculous lengths. In one recent case, a suspect told officers to quit reading his rights because he knew them. Should a court throw out the statements he gave police just because the police didn't read him his rights--over his own objection? I don't believe so.

Some defense attorneys argue that the failure to read Miranda rights at the beginning of an interrogation should always result in suppression of any statement obtained by police--regardless of the officer's good intentions. But if the truth is what the system seeks, why keep relevant evidence from a jury simply because police officers made an honest mistake?

Joshua Marquis

District Attorney, Ctatsop County, Oregon

NO

The Miranda warnings are an important part of our justice system, and there is no good reason for the courts to scale them hack. Miranda warnings have served their purpose well without unnecessarily inhibiting law enforcement; and...