T
The420Guy
Guest
OXNARD, Calif. - Maybe you don't have a right to remain silent after all.
The Supreme Court in its famous Miranda ruling told police they must respect
the rights of people who are held for questioning. Officers must warn them
of their right to remain silent and, equally important, honor their refusal
to talk further.
But the Supreme Court is about to reconsider that widely known rule, in the
case of a farmworker here who was shot five times after a brief encounter
with the police. Legal experts say the case has the potential to reshape the
law governing everyday encounters between police and the public.
Miranda rights
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney,
and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford
a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
While the farmworker lay gravely wounded, a police supervisor pressed him to
explain his version of the events. He survived, paralyzed and blinded, and
sued the police for, among other things, coercive interrogation.
The Oxnard police assert 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 has sided with the Oxnard police in the case. Police
can hold people in custody and force them to talk, so long as their
incriminating statements are not used to prosecute them, argues a brief to
the court filed by U.S. Solicitor Gen. Theodore Olson and Michael Chertoff,
the chief of the Justice Department's criminal division.
It "will chill legitimate law enforcement efforts to obtain potentially
life-saving information during emergencies," including terrorism alerts, if
police and FBI agents can be sued for coercive questioning, they add.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Dec. 4.
Legal experts on the other side of the case foresee far-reaching effects if
the Oxnard police prevail.
"This will be, in essence, a reversal of Miranda," said Susan Klein,
professor of law at the University of Texas. "Officers will be told Miranda
is not a constitutional right. If there is no right and you are not liable,
why should you honor the right to silence?" she asked. "I think it means you
will see more police using threats and violence to get people to talk.
Innocent people will be subjected to very unpleasant experiences."
It was early evening on a late November day five years ago when Oliverio
Martinez, 29, rode his bicycle down a path and across a vacant lot heading
toward a row of small homes.
Two officers, Andrew Salinas and Maria Pena, had stopped to question a man
they suspected of selling drugs. When they heard the squeaky bike approach
in the dark, they called for the rider to stop.
Martinez got off his bike and put his hands over his head. In a leather
sheath on his waistband, he carried a long knife that he used to cut
strawberries.
When Salinas patted him down and grabbed for the knife, Martinez tried to
run. Salinas tackled him and tried to handcuff him. As they struggled on the
ground, the officer called out that the man had a huge knife. Pena moved
closer and fired.
One bullet struck Martinez near the left eye and exited behind his right
eye. A second hit his spine. Three more shots hit his legs.
When patrol supervisor Sgt. Ben Chavez arrived, the handcuffed man lay
bleeding on the ground. Once Martinez was loaded into an ambulance, Chavez
climbed in with a tape recorder in hand.
On and off for the next 45 minutes, he repeatedly asked the gravely wounded
man to admit he had grabbed the officer's gun and provoked the struggle.
Martinez is heard screaming in pain and saying he is choking and dying.
"OK. You're dying. But tell me why you were fighting with the police?"
Chavez asks. "Did you want to kill the police or what?" One officer had said
Martinez tried to grab his gun.
In the emergency room, Chavez continued to press Martinez to tell him what
happened.
"Why did you run from the police?" Chavez is heard to say over the sounds of
nurses and doctors. "Did you get his gun? Did you to try to shoot the
police?"
Martinez in a low voice responds: "I don't know, I don't know."
Lawyers for Martinez say he panicked when the officer tried to tackle him
but that he did not grab the officer's gun.
In the emergency room, Martinez is heard asking Chavez several times to
leave him alone. "I don't want to say anything anymore."
"No? You don't want to say what happened?" the sergeant continues.
"It's hurting a lot. Please!" Martinez implores, his words trailing off into
screams.
Undaunted, Chavez resumed. "Well, if you're going to die, tell me what
happened."
Silence came only when the pain medication took hold, and Martinez faded
into unconsciousness.
Martinez survived, although he would not see or walk again. He sued the
Oxnard police for illegal arrest, the use of excessive force and coercive
interrogation in police custody.
Under a post-Civil War law, city and state officials, including police
officers, can be sued in federal court if they violate a person's rights
under the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge in Los Angeles cleared
Martinez's case to go before a jury.
Oxnard's lawyers said the allegations against Chavez should be dismissed
because the patrol supervisor was trying to learn what happened. U.S.
District Judge Florence Cooper disagreed and said his questioning suggested
he had sought to obtain an admission from Martinez that would clear the two
officers.
In the past, the Supreme Court has said police cannot be sued unless they
violate "clearly established" rights.
Before the case could be tried, Oxnard's lawyers appealed on behalf of
Chavez, saying he had violated no clearly established right.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Oxnard's appeal and said
the facts as alleged, if proved at a trial, would justify holding Chavez and
the city of Oxnard liable. The 9th Circuit judges said the rule against
coercive police interrogation had been established decades before the
Miranda decision of 1966.
"Sgt. Chavez doggedly pursued a statement by Martinez despite being asked to
leave the emergency room several times," wrote Judge Richard Tallman. "A
reasonable officer, questioning a suspect who had been shot five times by
the police and then arrested, who had not received Miranda warnings and who
was receiving medical treatment for excruciating, life-threatening injuries
would have known that persistent interrogation of the suspect despite
repeated requests to stop violated the suspect's Fifth and 14th Amendment
right to be free from coercive interrogation."
Pro-police advocates say that torturing a suspect would be unconstitutional
and that "shocking" or "brutal" police conduct could be punished.
But "the fact that a federal appellate court has allowed (a lawsuit) for
Sgt. Chavez's brief, comparatively benign questioning demonstrates the need
to clarify the law," said Charles Hobson of Criminal Justice Legal
Foundation.
Klein, of the University of Texas, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on
behalf of the National Police Accountability Project. She argued that
innocent people, such as Martinez, will be particularly vulnerable if the
court rules the Constitution does not forbid coercive police questioning.
Criminal suspects still can insist their incriminating statements not be
used against them at trial. But an innocent person who is held for
questioning would have no right and no remedy, she said.
Awaiting judgment day
If the Supreme Court overruled Miranda, it would surprise many people.
"A generation of Americans have been brought up with the belief that we have
a right to remain silent," said Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Southern California.
However, most lawyers who have followed the case think the Supreme Court
under Chief Justice William Rehnquist will overrule the 9th Circuit and side
with Oxnard, although some think the brutal shooting will cause several
justices to hesitate.
For Martinez, the slow-moving legal battle has proved to be a new type of
agony. Now 34, he lives with his father in a one-room trailer on a farm
field in Oxnard. He is in a wheelchair and wears dark glasses to cover the
eye that is missing.
Oxnard's lawyers have refused requests to pay for any therapy for him.
The three officers involved in the Martinez shooting remain on the Oxnard
police force and suffered no disciplinary action as a result of it, city
lawyers said.
Monday, November 25
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
The Supreme Court in its famous Miranda ruling told police they must respect
the rights of people who are held for questioning. Officers must warn them
of their right to remain silent and, equally important, honor their refusal
to talk further.
But the Supreme Court is about to reconsider that widely known rule, in the
case of a farmworker here who was shot five times after a brief encounter
with the police. Legal experts say the case has the potential to reshape the
law governing everyday encounters between police and the public.
Miranda rights
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney,
and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford
a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
While the farmworker lay gravely wounded, a police supervisor pressed him to
explain his version of the events. He survived, paralyzed and blinded, and
sued the police for, among other things, coercive interrogation.
The Oxnard police assert 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 has sided with the Oxnard police in the case. Police
can hold people in custody and force them to talk, so long as their
incriminating statements are not used to prosecute them, argues a brief to
the court filed by U.S. Solicitor Gen. Theodore Olson and Michael Chertoff,
the chief of the Justice Department's criminal division.
It "will chill legitimate law enforcement efforts to obtain potentially
life-saving information during emergencies," including terrorism alerts, if
police and FBI agents can be sued for coercive questioning, they add.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Dec. 4.
Legal experts on the other side of the case foresee far-reaching effects if
the Oxnard police prevail.
"This will be, in essence, a reversal of Miranda," said Susan Klein,
professor of law at the University of Texas. "Officers will be told Miranda
is not a constitutional right. If there is no right and you are not liable,
why should you honor the right to silence?" she asked. "I think it means you
will see more police using threats and violence to get people to talk.
Innocent people will be subjected to very unpleasant experiences."
It was early evening on a late November day five years ago when Oliverio
Martinez, 29, rode his bicycle down a path and across a vacant lot heading
toward a row of small homes.
Two officers, Andrew Salinas and Maria Pena, had stopped to question a man
they suspected of selling drugs. When they heard the squeaky bike approach
in the dark, they called for the rider to stop.
Martinez got off his bike and put his hands over his head. In a leather
sheath on his waistband, he carried a long knife that he used to cut
strawberries.
When Salinas patted him down and grabbed for the knife, Martinez tried to
run. Salinas tackled him and tried to handcuff him. As they struggled on the
ground, the officer called out that the man had a huge knife. Pena moved
closer and fired.
One bullet struck Martinez near the left eye and exited behind his right
eye. A second hit his spine. Three more shots hit his legs.
When patrol supervisor Sgt. Ben Chavez arrived, the handcuffed man lay
bleeding on the ground. Once Martinez was loaded into an ambulance, Chavez
climbed in with a tape recorder in hand.
On and off for the next 45 minutes, he repeatedly asked the gravely wounded
man to admit he had grabbed the officer's gun and provoked the struggle.
Martinez is heard screaming in pain and saying he is choking and dying.
"OK. You're dying. But tell me why you were fighting with the police?"
Chavez asks. "Did you want to kill the police or what?" One officer had said
Martinez tried to grab his gun.
In the emergency room, Chavez continued to press Martinez to tell him what
happened.
"Why did you run from the police?" Chavez is heard to say over the sounds of
nurses and doctors. "Did you get his gun? Did you to try to shoot the
police?"
Martinez in a low voice responds: "I don't know, I don't know."
Lawyers for Martinez say he panicked when the officer tried to tackle him
but that he did not grab the officer's gun.
In the emergency room, Martinez is heard asking Chavez several times to
leave him alone. "I don't want to say anything anymore."
"No? You don't want to say what happened?" the sergeant continues.
"It's hurting a lot. Please!" Martinez implores, his words trailing off into
screams.
Undaunted, Chavez resumed. "Well, if you're going to die, tell me what
happened."
Silence came only when the pain medication took hold, and Martinez faded
into unconsciousness.
Martinez survived, although he would not see or walk again. He sued the
Oxnard police for illegal arrest, the use of excessive force and coercive
interrogation in police custody.
Under a post-Civil War law, city and state officials, including police
officers, can be sued in federal court if they violate a person's rights
under the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge in Los Angeles cleared
Martinez's case to go before a jury.
Oxnard's lawyers said the allegations against Chavez should be dismissed
because the patrol supervisor was trying to learn what happened. U.S.
District Judge Florence Cooper disagreed and said his questioning suggested
he had sought to obtain an admission from Martinez that would clear the two
officers.
In the past, the Supreme Court has said police cannot be sued unless they
violate "clearly established" rights.
Before the case could be tried, Oxnard's lawyers appealed on behalf of
Chavez, saying he had violated no clearly established right.
But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Oxnard's appeal and said
the facts as alleged, if proved at a trial, would justify holding Chavez and
the city of Oxnard liable. The 9th Circuit judges said the rule against
coercive police interrogation had been established decades before the
Miranda decision of 1966.
"Sgt. Chavez doggedly pursued a statement by Martinez despite being asked to
leave the emergency room several times," wrote Judge Richard Tallman. "A
reasonable officer, questioning a suspect who had been shot five times by
the police and then arrested, who had not received Miranda warnings and who
was receiving medical treatment for excruciating, life-threatening injuries
would have known that persistent interrogation of the suspect despite
repeated requests to stop violated the suspect's Fifth and 14th Amendment
right to be free from coercive interrogation."
Pro-police advocates say that torturing a suspect would be unconstitutional
and that "shocking" or "brutal" police conduct could be punished.
But "the fact that a federal appellate court has allowed (a lawsuit) for
Sgt. Chavez's brief, comparatively benign questioning demonstrates the need
to clarify the law," said Charles Hobson of Criminal Justice Legal
Foundation.
Klein, of the University of Texas, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on
behalf of the National Police Accountability Project. She argued that
innocent people, such as Martinez, will be particularly vulnerable if the
court rules the Constitution does not forbid coercive police questioning.
Criminal suspects still can insist their incriminating statements not be
used against them at trial. But an innocent person who is held for
questioning would have no right and no remedy, she said.
Awaiting judgment day
If the Supreme Court overruled Miranda, it would surprise many people.
"A generation of Americans have been brought up with the belief that we have
a right to remain silent," said Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Southern California.
However, most lawyers who have followed the case think the Supreme Court
under Chief Justice William Rehnquist will overrule the 9th Circuit and side
with Oxnard, although some think the brutal shooting will cause several
justices to hesitate.
For Martinez, the slow-moving legal battle has proved to be a new type of
agony. Now 34, he lives with his father in a one-room trailer on a farm
field in Oxnard. He is in a wheelchair and wears dark glasses to cover the
eye that is missing.
Oxnard's lawyers have refused requests to pay for any therapy for him.
The three officers involved in the Martinez shooting remain on the Oxnard
police force and suffered no disciplinary action as a result of it, city
lawyers said.
Monday, November 25
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
