The Supreme Court has ruled that it's okay to beat up suspects without reading them their miranda rights in order to get statements out of them, even if those statements will most likely be thrown out later in a court of law. (Or not get thrown out, of course, considering that such decisions will be made later by individual judges on a case by case basis.)

Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, said that this is true even in the extreme case of Oliverio Martinez, who was in a hospital, bleeding to death from police-inflicted bullet wounds during the interrogation in question.

Here's a link to the opinion and concurring and dissenting opinions: CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ.

Court Finds Coercive Questioning OK
Justices say defendants or suspects can be compelled to respond to police questioning, even though the statements may not be used against them in court
By James Gerstenzang for The Los Angeles

The Supreme Court ruled today that coercive questioning of a suspect by police officers -- even a gravely wounded man who has not been offered his Miranda rights -- does not violate a person's Constitutional rights, as long as the questioning stops short of torture.

The court said defendants have the right not to have statements they make to police used in court against them during trial. But defendants or suspects can still be compelled to respond to police questioning.

The 6-to-3 decision is likely to have wide ramifications because it could open the door to increased pressure by police officers interrogating potential defendants...

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that while a person under police questioning has the right not to answer questions where the answer might be self-incriminating in future criminal proceedings, "that does not alter our conclusion that a violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination occurs only if one has been compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case."

Thomas wrote: "Mere coercion does not violate the text of the self-incrimination clause absent use of the compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness."

The farm worker, Oliverio Martinez, was questioned in a hospital emergency room after he had been shot five times by police. He had not been told of his rights to remain silent, or to have a lawyer's assistance, and he has maintained that a police sergeant questioned him after he said he did not want the questioning to continue.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-052703scotus_lat,1,4093479.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines

Court Finds Coercive Questioning OK
By James Gerstenzang
The Los Angeles

Tuesday 27 May 2003

Justices say defendants or suspects can be compelled to respond to police questioning, even though the statements may not be used against them in court

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled today that coercive questioning of a suspect by police officers -- even a gravely wounded man who has not been offered his Miranda rights -- does not violate a person's Constitutional rights, as long as the questioning stops short of torture.

The court said defendants have the right not to have statements they make to police used in court against them during trial. But defendants or suspects can still be compelled to respond to police questioning.

The 6-to-3 decision is likely to have wide ramifications because it could open the door to increased pressure by police officers interrogating potential defendants.

At issue is the extent of the protections provided by the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, the 1966 Miranda decision guaranteeing a person's right to remain silent in the face of police questioning and the right to obtain a lawyer before being interrogated.

In the decision, however, the high court ruled that suspects have a right to sue if they are tortured during police questioning.

In another Supreme Court case today, the court upheld the rights of state workers under a federal law guaranteeing time off to care for children or ailing relatives, departing from the court's line of cases that expand state rights at the expense of federal power or laws passed by Congress.

The court, in the decision written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, held that state employees can sue in federal court to enforce their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The Mirada ruling decision occurred in the 1997 case of an Oxnard, Calif., farm worker who was arrested and shot multiple times by police who then questioned him -- despite his protestations -- as he lay gravely wounded.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that while a person under police questioning has the right not to answer questions where the answer might be self-incriminating in future criminal proceedings, "that does not alter our conclusion that a violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination occurs only if one has been compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case."

Thomas wrote: "Mere coercion does not violate the text of the self-incrimination clause absent use of the compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness."

The farm worker, Oliverio Martinez, was questioned in a hospital emergency room after he had been shot five times by police. He had not been told of his rights to remain silent, or to have a lawyer's assistance, and he has maintained that a police sergeant questioned him after he said he did not want the questioning to continue.

The police supervisor pressed him to explain his version of the events leading to the shooting.

In a transcript of the interview, Martinez is said to have responded: "I am choking. I am dying, please."

The officer said: "If you are going to die, tell me what happened."

Martinez was not charged with a crime; the violence left him blind and paralyzed and he sued the police sergeant and the City of Oxnard for, among other things, coercive questioning.

In its defense, the Oxnard police department asserted that the Miranda ruling does not include a "constitutional right to be free of coercive interrogation," but only a right not to have forced confessions used at trial. The Bush administration sided with the police in the case.

Writing for the minority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the interrogation was akin to "an attempt to obtain an involuntary confession from a prisoner by torturous methods."