RULING COULD RELAX MIRANDA OXNARD POLICE STILL FACE LAWSUIT FOR HOSPITAL INTERROGATION.Byline: Staff and Wire Services An Oxnard police officer did not violate the rights of a gravely wounded farm worker by interrogating him without reading him his Miranda rights Miranda rights (Miranda rule, Miranda warning) n. the requirement set by the U. S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Alabama (1966) that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: "the right to , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. But the court left open the possibility that Sgt. Ben Chavez violated Oliverio Martinez's due process rights in 1997 by interrogating the severely wounded man Wounded Man in English, 傷追い人 (Kizuoibito) in Japanese, is a seinen manga written by Kazuo Koike and drawn in a Gekiga style by artist Ryoichi Ikegami. in an emergency room. On the issue of due process, the Supreme Court sent the case back to trial court for a ruling. Samuel Paz, attorney for the now paralyzed par·a·lyze tr.v. par·a·lyzed, par·a·lyz·ing, par·a·lyz·es 1. To affect with paralysis; cause to be paralytic. 2. To make unable to move or act: paralyzed by fear. and blind Martinez, called the decision a rollback of protections for those interrogated - but a partial victory for his client, an Oxnard resident, who can still sue alleging due process offenses rather than Miranda violations. ``It's a very disappointing finding,'' said Paz, a Los Angeles-based lawyer. ``Americans should be afraid. If you are picked out and they decide they want to put heavy pressure on you, you can be subjected to that and you have no rights.'' The ruling means that police officers cannot be sued for failing to read someone their rights, known as Miranda rights, if the person is never prosecuted, said the attorney who argued the case for the city of Oxnard. ``Police officers are less likely to be second-guessed when they're discharging a very hard job under complicated and high-pressure circumstances,'' said Washington lawyer Lawrence Robbins, who argued the case before the court. Martinez was shot five times by police and then subjected to a lengthy interrogation interrogation In criminal law, process of formally and systematically questioning a suspect in order to elicit incriminating responses. The process is largely outside the governance of law, though in the U.S. as he awaited medical treatment. He was never told of his rights, and he says a police sergeant kept questioning him even after he said he did not want to answer. Justice John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920) is currently the most senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He joined the Court in 1975 and is the oldest and longest serving incumbent member of the Court. compared the interrogation to ``an attempt to obtain an involuntary confession An admission, especially by an individual who has been accused of a crime, that is not freely offered but rather is precipitated by a threat, fear, torture, or a promise. from a prisoner by torturous methods.'' The man filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city of Oxnard and the police sergeant. Justice Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an American jurist and has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1991. He is the second African American to serve on the nation's highest court, after Justice Thurgood Marshall. , writing for the majority in part of the ruling, said that Chavez did not violate Martinez's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor (born March 26 1930) is an American jurist who served as the first female Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 to 2006. She was considered a strict constructionist. and Antonin Scalia. Justice David Souter agreed in a separate opinion, joined by Stephen Breyer. An appeals court had ruled that police coerced a confession from Martinez, in violation of his rights, and that his statement could not be used as evidence in his excessive-force civil trial. Justices disagreed. |
|
||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion