Pubdate: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO) Copyright: 2003 St. Louis Post-Dispatch Contact: http://www.stltoday.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/418 Author: Karen Branch-Brioso, Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau REGIONAL CASES TURN ON POLICE POWERS Ruling Could Affect Roadway Checkpoints WASHINGTON - Illinois and Missouri cases will play pivotal roles in the new term of the Supreme Court, as the court seeks to more precisely define police powers to search and interrogate suspects. The court will hold its first oral arguments of the 2003-04 term today. Next month, it will take up the case that challenged the constitutionality of an Illinois police checkpoint that netted a drunken driver even though the checkpoint was set up for another purpose. And in December, the justices will review the murder case against Patrice Seibert, a Rolla, Mo., woman who made incriminating statements before and after police intentionally delayed reading her the Miranda warning that begins, "You have the right to remain silent." The Illinois attorney general's office is defending the constitutionality of informational checkpoints, like the one set up by Lombard, Ill., police in 1997 to seek leads on a hit-and-run driver who had killed a bicyclist in the same area a week before. While doing so, the officers arrested Robert Lidster on an unrelated drunken-driving charge. The Illinois Supreme Court threw out Lidster's conviction after ruling the checkpoint violated the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Illinois Solicitor General Gary Feinerman argues otherwise: "It's important because informational checkpoints are a useful tool that police officers use to solve crimes, in particular vehicular crimes. When you have a hit-and-run accident, as in this case, the best witnesses may be motorists who are driving on the same street at the same time. The only feasible way to reach those motorists is to have a checkpoint." The Missouri case is one of three the court will hear that revolve around the Miranda warnings. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon calls those "the troika of cases . . . (that will decide) the breadth of what could be excluded in Miranda." His office will defend a Missouri police officer's actions in questioning Seibert, who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of Donald Rector, 17, who died in an arson fire in her mobile home. When Seibert was arrested, a Rolla police officer told the arresting officer not to read Seibert her Miranda rights. The Rolla officer interviewed her, then read her the rights before taking a taped confession. Last year, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed her conviction because of the delay and ordered a new trial. That trial is on hold pending the Supreme Court decision. The other Miranda cases before the Supreme Court will flesh out other aspects of the requirement, which was set down in a 1966 Supreme Court ruling, that law enforcement officers advise suspects of their rights to a lawyer during interrogation. One case will look at the admissibility of physical evidence found as a result of a suspect's statements made before receiving a Miranda warning. Samuel Patane was charged with illegal possession of a firearm after he told Colorado Springs, Colo., officers where they could find the gun in his bedroom. They seized it as evidence before reading him his Miranda rights. Another case, similar to Seibert's, will touch on the admissibility of a confession when the suspect confessed to a crime both before and after Miranda warnings were given. That was the case of John J. Fellers, who was convicted on drug charges after his arrest by Lincoln, Neb., officers, who first questioned him at home before reading the Miranda warning at a jailhouse later. "I think the Seibert case presents the most stark consequences for Miranda, because the question presented in our case is whether willful Miranda violations are going to be tolerated," said Amy Bartholow of the Missouri state public defender's office. Fiber-Optics Case The Supreme Court also has agreed this term to review a Missouri case that will help determine whether cities can compete with private companies in the telecommunications market. At issue is a Missouri law that bans cities from using their fiber-optic networks to provide phone and Internet services to private customers. The Missouri Municipal League contends a phrase in the 1996 federal Telecommunications Act trumps that law with a provision permitting the Federal Communications Commission to pre-empt laws that ban "any entity" from offering telecommunications services. In Missouri, the cities of Columbia, Sikeston and Springfield would like to expand their city-owned fiber-optic networks to private customers, but they have heavy-hitter opposition from the state, the FCC and Southwestern Bell. Missouri's attorney general argues that the state has the ability to legislate such powers for cities. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman