Justices Uphold Miranda Rule in Drug Case

Court Refuses to Reinstate Conviction of Suspect Who Wasn't Told He Could
Remain Silent

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court refused Monday to reinstate the drug
convictions of a Maryland man who was asked by the police if he used drugs
without first being warned of his right to remain silent.

The court, without comment, turned away prosecutors' argument that the
question was merely part of the normal arrest booking process and required
no warning.

Michael Patron Hughes was arrested in Qctober 1993 in Landover Hills,
Maryland, after he fled when the police looking for drug activity,
approached a group of people.

Saying that he dropped a bag containing crack cocaine as he fled, officers
charged him with various cocainerelated crimes.

While Mr. Hughes was being booked, the police asked him whether he was a
druguser. He answered that he was not.

Mr. Hughes had not yet been advised of his rights under the Supreme Court's
landmark 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, which requires of ficers to tell
suspects in custody of their right to remain silent or have a lawyer present
before responding to questions.

During Mr. Hughes's trial, prosecutors used his statement that he was not a
druguser to support the allegation that he intended to sell the drugs
instead of using them himself. Mr. Hughes appealed his convictions, saying
the statement should not have been used as evidence.

The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed and granted him a new trial.

The Supreme Court has recognized an exception from the Miranda rule for
routine identification questions asked during booking, the state court
noted.

But it added that the police "may not use the booking process as a pretext
for gathering incriminating information."

In the appeal acted on .Monday prosecutors asked the justices to clarify
what types of questions the police can ask during booking without giving the
warning.