Chris Buckley criticizes a recent Supreme Court decision that allows police some latitude in dealing with suspects who have been given their Miranda warning that they have the right to remain silent when they re-question the suspect at a later date, saying that the “Supreme Court delivers a major blow to Miranda rights.”

See Maryland v. Shatzer (PDF).  See also Adam Liptak’s report in the New York Times, ”Court says Miranda rights don’t bar requestioning.”

I disagree that the Court made a wrong decision in Shatzer.

The Court held that police can re-question a suspect if more than 14 days have passed since the time they first held a suspect in custody, even if the suspect invoked her Miranda rights during the first interrogation.

In the case before the Court, the suspect waived his Miranda rights when he was questioned by a detective a second time.

Writes Justice Scalia:

Because Shatzer experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards does not mandate suppression of his March 2006 statements. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The Court made the right decision in Shatzer.

If you invoke your Miranda rights once, you should invoke them again.

If you decide to speak to the police and incriminate yourself, that’s the consequence of your decision to speak with the police.  Suspects should not speak to the police voluntarily, then hope that their statements will be suppressed in later court cases.

Keep quiet, or speak boldly. 

Don’t speak, then hope that your words will be supressed at a later date.

Photo credit: Thomas Hawk.

Technorati Tags: Constitutional rights, law, Miranda, Shatzer, Supreme Court

Comments