WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled inmates need not be advised of their right to remain silent and seek attorney advice during an interrogation over a crime separate from their current imprisonment.
The top court overturned a US Court of Appeals decision that threw out a prisoner's conviction because he was not technically in "custody" when questioned for the he was being questioned for, despite being incarcerated for an unrelated offence.
The case involved the inmate Randall Fields in Michigan being interviewed in a Michigan prison over an assault of a 12-year-old girl, where he was not informed of his right to stay silent.
His conviction was overturned because he was not informed of what is known in the United States as "Miranda rights," which is based on the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
"Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation," wrote justice Samuel Alito for the majority opinion, after six out of the nine judges ruled to throw out the lower court decision.
Alito said it was an "undisputed fact" Fields was told he was "free to end the questioning and to return to his cell." Alito insisted "confessions voluntarily made by prisoners should not be suppressed."
For the minority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued an inmate already in prison being told they is "free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights."
The interrogation of Fields "in a police-dominated atmosphere, without informing him of his rights, dishonored the Fifth Amendment privilege Miranda was designed to safeguard," she wrote.
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.