Miranda warnings have become embedded in popular culture, even while the protections they afford have come under attack.

Turn on a television any night of the week and pretend cops will be reading pretend suspects their real rights. We’ve all seen it thousands of time, and maybe we know what our rights are – when we’re watching “Law & Order” or “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.”

But when the police come knocking in the real world, all that can change.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in two cases that could weaken the law established by Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. Two other Miranda cases will be heard during this court session.

The landmark ruling requires that police inform suspects of their rights before starting an interrogation. Those rights include the right to remain silent and to have guaranteed access to a lawyer.

Miranda opponents tried to get the rules overturned in 2000. They failed. Now opponents are looking for ways to get around the requirements.

In the one case before the court, police used a two-stage interrogation to coerce a confession from a suspect. The person was questioned until she gave incriminating evidence. At that point, she was read her rights. The information was then used to gain a second, post-Miranda confession. An appeals court rightly overturned the conviction.

Such judicial decisions are often criticized for allowing criminals to escape on technicalities. But the rules are in place to protect the individual from the overwhelming power of the state. The Supreme Court should not give the police a road map around constitutionally mandated requirements or erode the protections provided by Miranda.
Sensible

gun control
President Bush on Tuesday signed an important piece of gun control legislation that will help protect all of us, but especially people who travel by airplane.

The law extends for 10 years a ban on the manufacture, sale or possession of plastic guns. The ban on the weapons, last reauthorized in 1998, was set to expire this month.

These weapons are designed to defeat metal detectors and X-ray machines, which are used to screen luggage at airports, courthouses and numerous other public buildings.

While the law exempts the U.S. military and intelligence services, the law strictly limits the availability of these dangerous weapons, which will help keep them out of the hands of terrorists and other criminals.

Civilians have no legitimate use for these high-tech weapons. The president is correct to keep tight controls in place.


[email protected]