I found a few wires regarding this case. It makes a bit more sense, but each article I read put a different slant on it and it appears that the court was as divided as the posters regarding the issue. Of course I couldn't find the transcript on the December hearing because it has yet to be decided! duh. If I understand correctly, it appears the issue is whether it is a constitutional violation for the police to aggressively interrogate without citing Miranda rights. Or, does it become unconstitutional only if the testimony is used in court. This decision would be important to the Bush Administration due to the fact that the information alleged terrorist connections may provide in an interrogation is more valuable than prosecuting. This is going to be a toughie, IMHO, only because rights can't be taken away from alleged conspirators without being taken away from all of us. And if our rights are protected, so are the terrorists. So, is it unconstitutional to not give Miranda warnings, or is it only unconstitutional to use the testimony in court? (At least that's what I get out of it.) Both lower courts found that Chavez (the interrogater) violated Martinez's rights by interrogating him without Mirandas and should therefore not be protected by qualified immunity. He (Oxnard) appealed to the Supreme Court. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Copyright 2002 Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
Knight Ridder Washington Bureau
December 5, 2002, Thursday
SECTION: WASHINGTON DATELINE
KR-ACC-NO: K1962
LENGTH: 752 words
HEADLINE:
Supreme Court hears case on interrogations limits
BYLINE: By Shannon McCaffrey
BODY:
WASHINGTON _ Supreme Court justices sounded conflicted Wednesday as they wrestled with the question of whether aggressive police interrogations violate the Constitution.
The case before them involved a California farm worker who was shot five times by a police officer and then aggressively questioned in an emergency room by the officer's supervisor, without being read his rights.
The shooting left Oliverio Martinez blind and paralyzed below the waist.
As the justices contemplated whether police abused their authority in questioning a seriously wounded man, some also were thinking about how their ruling might affect counterterrorism investigations. "Suppose this is someone you believe is going to blow up the World Trade," Justice Antonin Scalia asked, hypothetically.
"You could beat him with a rubber hose?"
Justice Stephen Breyer wondered why questioning a wounded man in serious pain isn't "the equivalent of beating someone up."
"What worries me is not so much this case but what we're going to write and the implications," Breyer said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether police questioning someone suspected of kidnapping a child who cannot live without receiving medication are entitled to use coercive questioning to find the child.
The case came before the justices as federal law enforcement agents seek for new ways to gather intelligence from terrorism suspects and associates whom they may have no intention of prosecuting. The court's ruling, expected by June, would apply to questioning of U.S. citizens, not foreign "combatants" like those held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In the case at hand, two Oxnard, Calif., police officers investigating drug activity stopped Martinez in November 1997. Police say a struggle ensued and Martinez grabbed the gun of one of the officers. The other officer opened fire, shooting Martinez in the head, torso and legs.
Oxnard police patrol supervisor Sgt. Ben Chavez hopped in the ambulance with Martinez and persisted in questioning him even after medical personnel ordered him to leave the emergency room.
"I am dying . . .what are you doing to me?" Martinez is heard screaming on a tape Chavez made of the interrogation.
"If you are going to die tell me what happened," Chavez replied.
Martinez never was informed of his Miranda rights to remain silent during the 45-minute interrogation and twice asked Chavez to leave him alone.
Martinez, now 34, never was charged and sued Chavez under the Civil Rights Act, saying his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his 14th Amendment right to due process had been violated. Chavez argued that as a public official he was immune to such lawsuits.
But the U.S. District Court for Central California, and later the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sided with Martinez. On Wednesday, Chavez's lawyer, Lawrence Robbins, acknowledged that the interrogation was coercive.
"The facts of this case are tragic," Robbins said. But Robbins said that did not mean that Martinez's rights had been violated or, even if they were, that Chavez should be held liable.
For Chavez to be liable it must be shown that he had violated constitutional rights that had been "clearly established" so that any reasonable police officer would have know the questioning was wrongful, Robbins said.
Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the U.S. government in support of Chavez, said the conduct stopped short of "shocking the conscience."
A ruling for the police in this case could significantly weaken restraints on police interrogations by saying it is permissible to question someone aggressively without a Miranda warning as long as the information is not used in court.
The high court also heard arguments Wednesday in a case that asked whether federal racketeering laws written to pursue organized crime and corruption can be used against anti-abortion protesters.
The case has its roots in sometimes violent abortion protests and asks whether abortion opponents engage in extortion when they disrupt activity at clinics. Abortion opponents argue that under that reasoning many political protesters _ including civil rights activists who took part in lunch counter sit-ins _ could also be charged with extortion and in violation of their right to free speech.
While the case did not deal directly with abortion several dozen protesters from both sides of the heated issue picketed outside the high court.
___
(c) 2002, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
JOURNAL-CODE: WA
LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2002
________________________________________________________________________________________
