Most Americans are familiar with the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona from watching “Law & Order” and other cop shows on television. The suspect must be read his or her “rights” at the scene of the crime or at the police station. The verb “mirandize” has become a part of our language, and the effects of Miranda have become part of our culture. Three High Court decisions this term have chipped away at the original 5-4 ruling.

The heart of the Miranda majority opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, “Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.”

When Miranda was announced, law enforcement officials across the country reacted with strong opposition, accusing the Supreme Court of limiting their ability to obtain confessions and uphold the law. They warned that crimes would go unsolved, and the rights of the victims and the public would be unprotected under these restrictions. In direct contrast were criminal justice advocates who cited evidence of police brutality in obtaining confessions from suspects. They also emphasized the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) followed these practices, and according to Amendment V of the Constitution, no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

An expansion of Miranda occurred in l981 when a High Court case produced the strict “Edwards rule” barring police from interrogating a suspect once he had asked to remain silent and to speak with a lawyer. Its intent was to prevent police from “badgering” a suspect after he invoked his Miranda rights. Evidence was cited of cases where police had roused a suspect in the middle of the night to ask him again to waive his rights and confess to a crime.

On February 23 and 24, 2010, two back-to-back Supreme Court decisions weakened the original Miranda ruling. In the first case, Florida v. Powell, the 7-2 majority decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that Florida’s alternative wording of the Miranda warning was permissible even though it does not explicitly state that a suspect had the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. In the 2004 robbery in Tampa, Florida, the suspect, Kevin Powell was told he had the right “to talk to a lawyer” before answering police questions, and he could use “any of these rights at any time you want” during the interview. The Florida Supreme Court said this wording was inadequate and misleading and his confession should be suppressed. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling, stating that the Tampa police warnings “reasonably conveyed Powell’s right to have an attorney at all times.”

The next day, The High Court in a 9-0 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia in Maryland v. Shatzer, ruled that if there had been a “break in custody” and the suspect had gone free, the police should be allowed to speak with him after a period of time. “It seems to us that the period is 14 days. That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get re-acclimated to his normal life and to consult with friends and counsel.” The ruling reinstated a childabuse conviction against Michael Shatzer, who gave incriminatory statements to a state investigator two and a half years after he had first been questioned by police. He agreed to speak and admitted abusing his son without consulting a lawyer.

On June 1, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that criminal suspects who wanted to protect their right to remain silent, had to speak up! The case, Berghuis v. Thompkins concerned a man accused of shooting another man to death outside a mall. Thompkins was read his Miranda rights, but refused to sign a form saying that he understood them. He remained silent during almost three hours of interrogation except for saying his chair was hard and he did not want a peppermint. Then he was asked three questions: “Do you believe in God?” “Do you pray to God.” and “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” He answered “Yes” to each of the questions. During his trial, his answer to the third question was used as evidence against him and he was convicted of first-degree murder. When the conviction was appealed, the federal appeals court ruled in 2008 that his statement should have been excluded because it was not proven that Thompkins had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be silent.

The Supreme Court decision reversed the appeals court. Justice Kennedy did acknowledge that “some language in Miranda could be read to indicate that waivers are difficult to establish absent an explicit written waiver or a formal, express oral statement.” He continued, “a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.” He concluded, “A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.” He was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing her first major dissent, said the decision “turns Miranda upside down” and “bodes poorly for the fundamental principles that Miranda protects.” She said the majority had created a paradox. “A suspect who wishes to guard his right to remain silent, must, counter intuitively, speak.” She continued, “these principles flatly contradict” earlier decisions from the court. “At best, the court today creates an unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions. At worst, it overrules sub silentio an essential aspect of the protections Miranda has long provided.” Sotomayor was joined in the dissent by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen C. Breyer.

The complexity of Kennedy’s ruling leaves most court observers perplexed as to the effects it will have on law enforcement officers and Miranda warnings. Some say it will have little practical impact. Others disagree. David Kairys, a law professor at Temple University said, “We had this history, and we still do of relying on confessions more than traditional proof.” He added that the ruling put more burden on the suspects, “making it harder for the defendant who is improperly questioned and coerced to prove it.” Jeffrey Green, who assists the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, was not optimistic about the life of Miranda protections. He summed up his view of the future, “At this rate, what’s left will be only what we see on TV.”

Joyce S. Anderson is the author of “Courage in High Heels,” “Flaw in the Tapestry,” “If Winter Comes” and “The Mermaids Singing.” She can be reached at JSAWrite@aol.com.