Supreme Court: Police can question suspect after release

[pauldun170]

Supreme Court: Police can question suspect after release
11:20am EST
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday the police can resume questioning a suspect if the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation.

The justices unanimously ruled for the state of Maryland in overturning a lower-court decision that had thrown out the confession to the police by a suspect in a child sexual abuse case.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the high court that an initial request for an attorney does not mean the police cannot question a suspect later if the person has been released from custody and decides to confess.

The Supreme Court generally has favored the police and limited the rights of suspects in recent years. On Tuesday, it ruled officers adequately warned a suspect of his legal rights when they told him he could speak to a lawyer before answering any questions.

The latest ruling involved Michael Shatzer, who had been imprisoned in Maryland for child sexual abuse in 2003 when police started investigating allegations he had sexually abused his 3-year-old son. Shatzer requested an attorney and the case went dormant.

Some 2 1/2 years later, the boy was old enough to offer new details. When a different police detective then questioned Shatzer about the case, he was advised of his rights and signed a form waiving them before confessing.

Shatzer then sought to suppress his incriminating statements on the grounds he had asked for an attorney years earlier and that request had still remained valid.

Shatzer's attorneys had argued before the Supreme Court that a police officer who resumes an investigation has a duty to determine, before questioning a suspect, if the person had previously ever requested a lawyer.

But Scalia disagreed and said the 2-1/2-year break was plainly enough time to eliminate any residual coercive effect of the first questioning.

"When a suspect is released from custody after the initial attempted interrogation and returns to his normal life for some time, there is little reason to believe that his change of heart was coerced," Scalia said.

He said the purpose of a 1981 Supreme Court ruling was to protect a suspect's choice not to be interrogated without counsel present by preventing the police from badgering the suspect into waiving his previously asserted legal rights.

The 1981 ruling would not apply after a suspect has been released from custody for at least 14 days, which would give the person enough time to return to normal life and consult with friends and counsel, Scalia said.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

[EpyonXero]

Sounds fair.

[Particle Man]

So?

[Papa_Complex]

I see no problem with the concept, but definitely do with the stated time-frame. If we're talking about 2 weeks, then police are on notice that the suspect has secured counsel. They should not speak to him without counsel present. A couple of YEARS, as in the stated case, may be a different story.