RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

As anyone who grew up watching cop shows know that when they arrest you, they are required to read you your Miranda Rights. These rights are:



!) You have the right to remain silent. If you give up this right to remain silent, anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.

2) You have the right to speak to an attorney and have him present during questioning.

3) If you can not afford one, an attorney will be appointed to you without any charge.



Well, these rights are being challenged. Today, it was reported by the Associated Press that the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling, stated that the police can arrest and punish those who do not cooperate with the police in identifying themselves.



This ruling is from a case in Nevada when a farmer, Larry ''Dudley'' Hiibel, was arrested in 2000. The police were called when someone saw Mr. Hiibel and his daughter arguing loudly in his truck on a rural road. When the police approached the truck they asked several times for Mr. Hiibel to identify himself. Finally, after 11 times of his refusing to answer, the police arrested him. Mr. Hiibel believed, like many of us, that we have the right to remain silent if we choose to do so. Now the Supreme Court says that�s no longer true. This ruling is similar to an earlier ruling from back in 1968 that gave police the authority to stop and search anyone they believe is acting in a suspicious manner. Officer McFadden watched three men acting suspicious in front of a store. Believing that these men were casing the store for a robbery, so he approaqched and �frisked� them and found weapons on them. The Court held that the cop had enough experience and knowledge to make him suspicious of these men's behavior and therefor was probable cause to search them.



The Miranda Rights as we know them originated from a case that started on March 2, 1963, in Phoenix, Arizona. An eighteen year old woman had left her job at the ticket booth of the Paramount movie theater to go home at 11pm that night. She took the bus home like always and after one transfer, her bus stopped a few blocks from her home. As she was walking down the street a car pulled up ahead of her and a man got out and started walking toward her. When he got with in reach, he grabbed her and dragged her to his car. He then drove her out to the desert where he raped her, put her back in the car and dropped her off a block from her house. (Court TV Library)



Traumatized, this young woman could only say that the man was Mexican, 5�7�, approximately 175 lbs, with a mustache. She was so traumatized that she couldn�t remember details of the rape, or what he was wearing. She did remember that he drove a green car and that it smelled like paint or turpentine. The police were becoming frustrated with her vague answers until one of her brothers-in-law told the police that she had the mind of a 13 yr old.



Another said she was very shy, that in the three years he had been a part of the family, she had only talked to him once. But the one piece of information the police got from her family was from another member who had started picking her up at the bus stop because she was afraid to walk home. On one of those trips home, they saw the green car that the man had driven the night of the rape. He saw it on another occasion and managed to get the license plate number. He turned the information over to the police and because of it, they found Ernest Miranda.



Once arrested and at the police station, they began questioning Miranda, telling him that he flunked the lineup and that if he confessed they would get him counseling. Then they handed him a paper. At the top was a statement that the person understood their rights and was making a statement, even though no one ever told Miranda his right against self incrimination, and the right to an attorney. The cops believed that since Miranda had an extensive criminal record he was familiar with his rights.



When Miranda went to trial, his attorney was a 75 yr old, semi-retired lawyer who was the only one who would take the case for the $100 fee. Their soul defense was that the confession was coerced. Miranda was convicted of the rape and sentenced to 20-30 yrs in prison.



After his conviction, the Arizona�s ACLU took up Miranda�s cause to have his conviction overturned. In 1965, the Supreme Court heard arguments to over turn Miranda�s conviction. On June 13, 1966, the Courts decision was handed down. From that point on, all police departments have to inform arrestee�s of their 5th and 14th amendment rights.



Even since then, the courts have been picking away at this decision. Such as in the case mentioned above. Hiibel was exercising his right to remain silent, but the courts say that police can now arrest and punish those who fell to identify them selves.



But then there are times that it appears that the police have clearly overstepped their bounds but the High Court doesn�t agree. In 2002, a case was in front of the Court in which a farmer, Oliverio Martinez was questioned in the back of an ambulance and in the emergency room after being shot 5 times by the police. In a magazine titled COUNTER PUNCH, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Joanne Mariner writes that what started this case was Mr. Martinez; a 34 yr old farm worker was riding his bike home when he came across two cops questioning another man. When the cops saw Mr. Martinez, they asked him to get off his bike. In doing so, the cops caught a glimpse of the knife that Mr. Martinez had in his belt, that he used while working. One cop yelled knife and tried to take it from him. Not knowing why the cops were attacking him, Mr. Martinez fought back. Thinking that he was going for one of the cop�s gun, the other cop shot him 5 times. While he lay in the ambulance bleeding, the police sergeant on the scene continued questioning him. Mr. Martinez asked, �Ay, I am dying, what are you doing to me?� (Mariner, page 2) Latching on to his statement that he was going to die, the sergeant said, �If you are going to die, tell me what happened?� (Mariner) The sergeant was hoping he could have Mr. Martinez make a �dying declaration�, which is a statement that a person can make if they feel they are going to die and it is exempt from the hear say rule of law.



Mr. Martinez did live, although now he is a paraplegic and is blind. Even though he sued the Oxnard Police Department and the three cops involved, he has not been compensated for his injuries and the cops were never disciplined. The basis of Mr. Martinez lawsuit was that his fifth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated, to be free of �coercive interrogation.� The federal court dismissed the case stating that Mr. Martinez was never in custody; therefore his rights were never violated.



So, then next time you are watching a cop show and you hear them read the perp his Miranda rights, just remember, those rights were never carved in stone.