United States Supreme Courts looks at Police Pursuits:
One of the most important cases, at least in police circles, decided by the Court in 1998 was the County of Sacramento v. Teri Lewis - May 26, 1998. Sacramento involved a county Sheriff's Deputy who was out on a "fight call" when a motorcycle, with two teens on board, came towards the officers at a high rate of speed. The Deputy yelled for them to stop, and had activated his overhead emergency lights - but the boys did not stop. A brief (75 seconds, 1.3 miles) pursuit ensued, with the patrol car traveling "up to 100 miles per hour", and ended with the motorcycle "tipping over" on a turn. The Deputy skidded into the ejected passenger at 40 miles per hour. The passenger died at the scene. The family of the passenger (Lewis) brought a suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging deprivation of Lewis's 14th Amendment substantive due process right to life. The Supreme Court held that "A police officer does not violate substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender." The Court found fault where it should be - the violator! The Court further stated: "Smith [the Deputy] was faced with a course of lawless behavior for which the police were not to blame. They had done nothing to cause Willard's [the operator of the motorcycle] high speed driving in the first place, nothing to excuse his flouting of the commonly understood police authority to control traffic, and nothing (beyond refusal to call off the chase) to encourage him to race through traffic at breakneck speed." Keep in mind that this ruling only pertains to "substantive due process" and does not over turn any of the recent Florida Supreme Court rulings with regards to negligentpolice pursuits, but it is good to see a generally understanding viewpoint by The nations highest Court.
|
Supreme Court re-examines Miranda Rights
In case you have not yet heard, don't throw away those "Miranda Rights" cards; the United States Supreme Court has reaffirmed its 1966 ruling of Miranda v. Arizona. A suspect has
"the right to remain silent; that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966).
As the July/August Issue of The Trainer was readying for publication on June 26, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued their long awaited opinion on "Miranda." Few names in the Law Enforcement community evoke as much controversy and disagreement as does "Miranda." The Supreme Court in the case of Charles Thomas Dickerson v. United States - 2000 WL 807223 (U.S.) decided that "Miranda" stays! Police groups and civil libertarians throughout the country were poised for this decision.
Charles Dickerson was indicted for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the course of committing a crime of violence. Dickerson moved to suppress the statement he had given the FBI, before trial, on the basis that he had not been given "Miranda" warnings prior to being questioned. The Federal District Court granted the Motion to Suppress his statements. The United States Government took an immediate Appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia). The 4th Circuit reversed the District Court, BUT held that the "Miranda" decision (Miranda v. Arizona, 394 U.S. 436 (1966)) was not a "Constitutional Holding." Why was that a big deal? Because 2 years after the Miranda decision in 1966, the Congress had enacted 18 U.S.C. 3501 which, in part, stated that the admissibility of suspect statements "made during custodial interrogation", turned on whether or not the statements were made "voluntarily." In other words, the Congress attempted to nullify the Supremes decision in Miranda and replace the "Miranda Rights" with a Judicial Standard of voluntariness. Needless to say, the 1968 law was never enforced, or for that matter even widely known by most street officers. So what we have in the Dickerson decision, is the United States Supreme Court asserting its Constitutional Powers. The Supremes opined in this 7-2 decision that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to supersede the "Miranda" decision. This will come as quite a blow to many who had hoped that the current Court would overturn "Miranda." Ironically, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is not usually categorized as a "liberal" justice, and who was a vocal critic of Miranda in his younger days, delivered the opinion for the Court. Rehnquist gave a thorough accounting of the history, logic, and legal basis for this Court's decision and disagreed with the dissenting Justices: Scalia and Thomas. It is important to note that Justice Rehnquist and the Court did not state whether or not they even agree with the holding in Miranda, but rather decided this case based on the case law which has followed the original Miranda ruling. One excellent point that the Court made in their decision was that the alternative to "Miranda", would be the totality-of-the-circumstances test of 18 U.S.C. 3501 which would be much more difficult for law enforcement officer and the courts to conform to and apply in a consistent manner.
The bottom line for the Court, and therefore for the rest of us, is that the "Miranda Warnings" have become a routine police practice in this country, "to the point that the warnings have become a part of our national culture." This decision was not totally unexpected, and some law enforcement administrators had already gone on record as favoring maintaining the use of "Miranda" even if the Court had ruled that it was no longer necessary or Constitutional.
The above articles have appeared in "The Law Enforcement Trainer", which is the official magazine of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers. The articles were authored by
John A. Makholm who has served in Law Enforcement for over 26 years retiring as Chief of Police with the Punta Gorda Police Department (Florida). Mr. Makholm earned his Juris Doctorate Degree from Stetson College of Law and currently works for the law firm of Peter M. Walsh & Associates in St. Petersburg, Florida - which concentrates on defending Law Enforcement and Corrections Officers and their Agencies. John Makholm also serves as an officer with the Treasure Island Police Department (FL), and served as Region IV Director of ASLET for several years.
"The Law Enforcement Trainer" - ASLET
|
|
