SAN FRANCISCO — Even if a suspect asks for a lawyer and a police officer deliberately continues questioning him in violation of his Miranda rights, the suspect's statements can be used against him in court if he testifies in his own defense, the California Supreme Court held Thursday.
The court, ruling in a San Bernardino case, said a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed illegally obtained statements to be used to challenge the truthfulness of a defendant's testimony applies even when a police officer's violation of Miranda was "calculated and purposeful."
In the landmark 1966 Miranda case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that police must stop interrogating suspects once they have invoked the right to remain silent or asked for a lawyer. In recent years, however, the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts have narrowed Miranda's scope--a trend that Thursday's ruling continued.
Alemayehu G. Mariam, who represented the defendant in Thursday's case, said the court's ruling gives police "a green light" to extract statements from suspects after they have invoked their Miranda rights.
"The whole notion of deterring police misconduct during interrogations has been dealt a severe blow," Mariam said. "It is a grand invitation to officers in the field to engage in deliberate disregard of Miranda and to interrogate until the suspect makes incriminating statements."
Mariam said he will appeal Thursday's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Deputy Atty. Gen. Sara Gros-Cloren predicted that the ruling would not alter police conduct, insisting that law enforcement officers "overwhelmingly comply with Miranda anyway."
"An officer who chooses intentionally not to comply with Miranda always runs the risk that he may cross the line into violation of due process, and the statements won't come in at all," she said.
An interrogation would violate due process if the defendant's statements were coerced or made as a result of being under duress. If a defendant can prove such a violation, his statements cannot be admitted for any purpose.
In 1971, the U.S. high court held that statements made in violation of Miranda could be used to challenge the veracity of a defendant if he takes the stand at trial.
California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing for a unanimous court, said that the earlier ruling was a judgment that it is more important to expose a defendant who is committing perjury than to deter possible police misconduct.
