Police Power Expands from Supreme Court Decision by Conservatives

Conservative justices have just overturned a 23-year-old law, which reveals the conflicting opinions regarding the Constitution. Certain legal rights for criminal suspects have changed, continuing to expand police power in the U.S.

As part of the Miranda warning, police are to tell suspects they have a right to counsel during interrogation. Two weeks ago, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there are certain circumstances when police can begin an interrogation of a suspect without an attorney present. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, overruled a 23-year-old Supreme Court decision made in 1986 that prevented police from beginning questioning when a defendant declared the right to an attorney at an arraignment or similar action. Conservative justices have continued to expand the power of the police, according to Reuter reports, although they didn’t change the fundamental 1966 ruling preventing police from asking a suspect questions who maintained the right to remain silent or have a lawyer present. The ruling was the latest in a recent string by conservative justices expanding the power of police to question suspects, but it does not change the landmark 1966 ruling barring the police from questioning a suspect who invoked the right to remain silent or have a lawyer present. The recent Supreme Court ruled against Jesse Jay Montejo, a Louisiana death row inmate. Montejo is scheduled to receive the death penalty for killing a dry-cleaning operator while committing a robbery in 2002. He had originally waived his right to an attorney. Police questioned him, during which time Montejo was reported to have given conflicting stories. Days later during a preliminary hearing a local judge appointed legal counsel for Montejo who was unable to afford an attorney. Later that day Montejo again waived his right to counsel, then again changed his mind. At a later time Montejo claimed police hadn’t afforded him his constitutional right to counsel by questioning him without his lawyer present and had compelled him to write a confession letter and apologize to the wife of the victim of the shooting. The letter became evidence at his trial. The Louisiana Supreme Court first rejected his appeal, and now the U.S. Supreme Court has followed suit. Representing the conservative majority, in overruling the 1986 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "The considerable adverse effect of this rule upon society's ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice far outweighs its capacity to prevent a genuinely coerced agreement to speak without counsel present." Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote 1986 decision, disagreed. He declared the benefits of overruling the decision are outweighed by damage to the rule of law and the constitutional right to an attorney. Sotomayor is being reviewed for her opinions and is addressing questions about her ability to maintain a stance relative to strict interpretation of the law. Given the overturning of the 1986 law, and the fundamental changes it makes to those suspected of crimes, it is likely the debate over what is strict interpretation of the constitution and what is not may itself be a matter of opinion.