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