Document text
Miranda case will do little for state policy Oregon Supreme Court requires reading of rights By JESSICA SMITH Oregonians in police custody will have the right to remain silent, no matter what the nation's highest court says about so-called Miranda warnings. The U.S. Supreme Court examines today its decades-old policy on Miranda warnings when it hears arguments on a Maryland man's case. But whether the court affirms the 1966 decision requiring police officers to inform suspects of their rights is beside the point for Oregon, according to state officials and local authorities. "It doesn't mean anything," said David Schuman, deputy attorney general for Oregon. "What the U.S. Supreme Court does in this case, in interpreting the federal Constitution, has no bearing at all on what an officer in Oregon will have to do." In the case before the Supreme Court, the justices will decide whether police obtained a Maryland man's confession in a bank robbery in a way that violated his constitutional rights. In 1966, the court said police interrogations threatened an individual's Fifth Amendment right not to be forced into a confession, and the Sixth Amendment right to have a lawyer if he or she becomes a prime suspect. Since then, the court has required police to inform suspects about those rights. Congress in 1968 attempted to undermine that decision by passing a law that said Miranda warnings are unnecessary and that, without them, voluntary confessions may be used against a suspect in federal cases. Now, the Supreme Court must decide whether the 1966 decision was a constitutional one. Should the court reverse the 34-year-old decision, the Oregon effect will be negligible, state and local officials said. "The real question is whether or not it's a requirement under Oregon law for officers to read Miranda warnings," said Mark Huddleston, Jackson County district attorney. The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that the state Constitution requires police to recite the speech -- made famous by a thousand TV police shows -- that begins with, "You have the right to remain silent ... ." While states are required to follow laws set out in the U.S. Constitution, they also are allowed to be more restrictive than the federal government. A state constitutional amendment or new legislation would be required to change the Oregon Miranda laws. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the Maryland case and the Miranda warnings sometime this summer. Meanwhile, Oregon authorities say they don't expect anyone to notice changes in police interrogations or arrests. "I don't think it's going to change how we do business," said Medford police chief Eric Mellgren. "We rarely if ever rely on just a confession. We still go after evidence." Today's Edition : News | Sports | Business | Weather | Tempo | Classifieds Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA