Court Rules for Police in Miranda Case

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court shielded police officers from certain lawsuits over the questioning of some criminal suspects when it ruled Tuesday in the case of a farm worker shot five times by police, but splintered on how much protection police should have.

The court ruled that an officer could not be sued for violating the constitutional rights of the gravely wounded man by interrogating him at the hospital even when the man pleaded for him to stop and find medical help.

The case involved the police duty to recite the common police warnings known as Miranda rights in cases when a criminal suspect is questioned but not prosecuted. The case involved two constitutional guarantees — the right not to incriminate oneself and the right to fair treatment under the law.

Oliverio Martinez lost his case on the first grounds but may still be allowed to collect damages on the second. In a 5–3 vote, the court sent the case back to California for more consideration.

The ruling was a split victory for law enforcement. The court said officers cannot be sued for failing to read someone their rights or for compelling them to give a statement, if the person is never prosecuted.

But officers can face lawsuits if their conduct is so atrocious that it violates someone's due process rights.

"Police officers are less likely to be second-guessed when they're discharging a very hard job under complicated and high pressure circumstances," said Washington lawyer Lawrence Robbins, who represented the police officer.

Martinez was shot during a scuffle after being stopped while riding his bicycle through an area known for drugs in 1997. Martinez, who was never charged with a crime, was left blind and paralyzed.

Justice John Paul Stevens compared the hospital interrogation to "an attempt to obtain an involuntary confession from a prisoner by torturous methods."

Stevens included in his opinion a transcript of part of the questioning, including references to unintelligible screams and sounds like "Uuuggghhh!" The law officer told Martinez, "If you are going to die, tell me what happened."

The case tied up the court longer than any other this year. When justices heard arguments in December, they worried over its implications in terrorism cases. The ruling could have implications for counterterrorism interrogations, when building a criminal case may be less important than gathering intelligence.

Martinez had filed a civil rights lawsuit against the police sergeant who questioned him about whether he was trying to take a gun away from an officer during the scuffle in Oxnard, Calif.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in part of the ruling, said that Sgt. Ben Chavez did not violate Martinez's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because his hospital confession was not used. Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia. Justice David Souter agreed in a separate opinion with Justice Stephen Breyer.

Thomas said he did not expect Martinez to win under his claim that his due process rights were violated.

Sonia Mercado, one of the attorneys for Martinez, said the court seemed to be saying "You can beat a person and as long as you don't prosecute them, it's OK."

The five justices who agreed that he could pursue his lawsuit under the other constitutional area were Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. O'Connor is not recorded as voting.

David Oscar Markus, a Miami attorney with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said justices did not totally shut the door on police lawsuits, although they may be harder to win.

"The court is still unwilling to say to the police 'Go and do whatever you want in order to stop crime,' " Markus said.

The case is Chavez v. Martinez, 01-1444.