Just about every potential client who walks into my office seeking criminal defense advice seems to know about Miranda rights.  I attribute this universal knowledge to delightfully entertaining, yet legally inaccurate, criminal law television shows such as Law and Order, CSI, and NCIS.  Often, one of the first things I hear from my clients is “They didn’t read me my rights.” “They“ of course being the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the Los Angeles Sheriff Department (LASD), or the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The cops.  And when I hear this mention of Miranda, I consistently think to myself, if only this Miranda issue would make a real difference in the case.  Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is most Miranda violations, even if found to be a Miranda violations by the Court, do not result in a dismissal of the case, or even a slap on the wrist of law enforcement.   On February 24th, The Supreme Court just issued another nail in the coffin of our Miranda protections in Maryland v. Shatzer.   My favorite Justice (tongue in cheek), Justice Scalia wrote the opinion and six other Supreme Court Justices fully joined in the opinion.

In Edwards v. Arizona, the Court held that a suspect’s waiver of his Miranda rights, after a 14-day break in police custody, was presumed involuntary and coerced.  This ruling meant that because the suspect already had previously asserted his Miranda rights, even if there was a 14- day break in custody, and the defendant was then re-arrested but agreed to talk to the police without an attorney, the suspect’s agreement to talk, or his waiver of his Miranda rights, would be considered involuntary and could result in suppression of the statements.

In Shatzer, the Supreme Court reversed the Maryland Court of Appeals and held that Shatzer’s return to his pre-interrogation life in prison, for a period of 2½ years before being re-questioned by law enforcement, constituted a break in custody and constituted a voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. The court further held that the Edwards case did not require the suppression of the involved statements 2½ years later, because the Miranda waiver was considered voluntary.

Here’s the really questionable part of the holding.  The Supreme Court reasoned that a suspect who has been released for at least two weeks, or 14 days, following a law enforcement custodial interrogation, presumptively has enough time to re-acclimate to his daily life, his family/friends.  The Supreme Court arbitrarily concluded that 14 days is a sufficient custodial break which will erase the taint of any police coercion which may have previously occurred. So now it seems that as long as 14 days have passed since you were last questioned by law enforcement, your Miranda rights may be trampled all over again, without consequence, even if you previously told law enforcement you did not want to speak to them without an attorney present.