By James Vicini, Reuters
The Supreme Court said Monday it would decide whether the police’s failure to advise suspects of their rights while being questioned would make any evidence gathered from their statements inadmissible in court.
The high court agreed to hear a Justice Department appeal arguing that such evidence could be used when the suspect gave the police permission, even though he had not been told of all of his Miranda rights.
The Supreme Court also said it would decide a second criminal law case about the power of police to search a car after the arrested occupant left the vehicle.
The first case involved Samuel Patane, who was arrested in 2001 outside his residence by a Colorado Springs police officer for violating a domestic violence restraining order.
Detective Josh Benner began reading Patane his so-called Miranda rights. After he was told of his right to remain silent, Patane said he knew his rights and the detective stopped reading the required warning.
Benner asked Patane what guns he owned and the suspect replied one already was in police custody. Benner, who had been told by a probation officer that Patane was a convicted felon and he possessed a Glock pistol, asked about that pistol.
Patane replied it was on a shelf in his bedroom and gave the detective permission to get it. Patane later was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. He sought to suppress the police seizure of the pistol.
A federal judge and a U.S. appeals court ruled for Patane. The appeals court ruled the evidence must be suppressed because it stemmed from a violation of Patane’s Miranda rights.
The Justice Department appealed, with Solicitor General Theodore Olson saying the appeals court ruling was incorrect and conflicted with past high court rulings after its famous 1966 Miranda decision, which required police to read suspects their rights.
In 2000, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its Miranda ruling.
Olson called it an “important issue in federal criminal law” and said officers in a variety of cases may fail to complete the warnings to suspects. For example, the warnings may be omitted during a fast-moving investigation, he said.
In the other case, the high court said it would decide whether an officer can search the car of a recent occupant who was arrested outside the vehicle and unaware of the police before leaving his car.
The justices agreed to hear an appeal by Arizona arguing that state courts were wrong in requiring that the suspect must be aware of the police before getting out of the vehicle.
The case involved Rodney Gant, who pulled his car into a residential driveway while the police watched. As an officer walked toward the car, Gant got out. The officer arrested him based on an outstanding warrant and then searched the car.
Gant was convicted of unlawful possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, which the officer found in the car. Gant was sentenced to three years in prison.
An Arizona appeals court overturned the conviction, ruling the evidence from the search must be suppressed. It said the search would be allowed if Gant had been in the car or had been aware of the police before he got out.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the two cases and will issue rulings during its term that begins in October.