All of us who have watched

those gritty television police dramas like Hill Street

Blues or NYPD Blue - or who are fanciers of those

action-packed cops movies - are familiar with the

scene where the officers of the law finally get their man

(or, woman, as the case may be).

The capture is usually

preceded by a high-speed car chase and often by a raging

gun battle in a crowded downtown street during broad

daylight (to get in those dramatic scenes of the innocent

bystanders running and screaming to avoid the bullets).

Then, after the good guy

with the badge has subdued the bad guy by twisting his

arm behind his back before slamming him down against a

waiting car hood, he begins reciting - between

pants, gasps, and other attempts to catch his breath

after all that exertion - those familiar words we

have all heard over and over.

You know, the ones that go:

"You have the right to remain silent; if you choose

not to, anything you say can and will be used against you

in a court of law; you have the right to talk to an

attorney and to have him present during the questioning;

if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to

you."

Now, in truth, most arrests

made by law enforcement agencies across the country are

not so dramatic.

Most occur at the home or

workplace of the suspect being sought and the words are

read off the back of a business card.

But, whenever an arrest

occurs, that is supposed to be the first words the

suspect hears out of the police officer's mouth.

They are called the Miranda

warning - and they are guaranteed by a 1966 decision

from the U. S. Supreme Court in an Arizona case.

In effect, what the ruling

said was that if the police did not inform the suspect of

his rights before they started questioning him, then

whatever he said could not be used in court - even

if he voluntarily admitted that he was guilty of whatever

crime for which he was being arrested.

The requirement to use the

Miranda warning has long been controversial and they are

often pointed to as the first downward movement in the

slide toward standing up for the criminal, rather than

the victim.

Now, it is being challenged

in a case out of Virginia where a man confessed to a

string of bank robberies but had his testimony excluded

from the trial because police did not read him his rights

before they started questioning him and he spilled his

guts.

The basis for the appeals

court ruling which has now been accepted for hearing by

the nation's top court is a rarely-used 1968 federal law

which said Miranda was only one of the factors which

would determine whether a confession could be used in

court and did not automatically disallow it if the

suspect was read his rights after giving a statement

implicating himself.

At first glance, one might

think that the Supreme Court was about to overturn

Miranda and establish a new precedent for law enforcement

officers to follow.

After all, it was led by

Chief Justice Earl Warren (remember all those

"Impeach Earl Warren" signs that used to dot

the countryside?) and it was far more liberal than the

one that is currently sitting.

Still, this court has been

pretty unwilling to overturn every precedent from that

era.

Even if they do modify the

Miranda decision, they are unlikely to toss it out

completely.

(And, even if they did, it

would only apply to federal prosecutions because most

states have since enacted their own laws to require the

practices imposed by the Miranda decision.)

Besides, there is still

that "pesky" Fifth Amendment to the U. S.

Constitution which says that "No person shall be

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against

himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property,

without due process of law."

[Lee N. Howell is an

award-winning writer who has been observing politics and

society in the Southern Crescent, the state, and nation

for the past 25 years.]