— A crime suspect who invokes his “right to remain silent” under the
famous Miranda decision can be questioned again after 14 days, the
In a 9-0 decision in a
child-abuse case, the high court overturned a strict rule set in 1981
that barred police from questioning a suspect once he had asked to
remain silent and to speak with a lawyer. Known as the “Edwards rule,”
it was intended to prevent investigators from “badgering” a suspect who
was held in jail after he had invoked his Miranda rights. In some
cases, police had awakened a suspect in the middle of the night and
asked him again to waive his rights and to admit to a crime.
Although that rule makes sense for suspects who are
held in jail, it does not make sense for suspects who have gone free,
the justices said Wednesday. In recent years, it has been understood to
prevent police from ever re-questioning a freed suspect, even for other
crimes in other places.
“In a country that harbors a large number of repeat
offenders, the consequence” of the no-further-questioning rule “is
disastrous,” said Justice
If there has been a “break in custody” and the
suspect has gone free, Scalia said the police should be allowed to
speak with him after some period of time. “It seems to us that period
is 14 days,” he said. “That provides plenty of time for the suspect to
get re-acclimated to his normal life (and) to consult with friends and
counsel.”
Then, if the suspect waives his rights and agrees to talk, any statement he makes can be used against him, the court said.
The ruling in Maryland vs. Shatzer reinstates a child-abuse conviction against a
man who made incriminatory statements to a state investigator 2 1/2
years after he had first been questioned by police. At that time,
had been sent to state prison on another, unrelated charge.
When a new investigator asked him about the original
allegation, he agreed to speak and admitted abusing his son. However,
he later won a ruling from the
—
(c) 2010, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
