For more than three decades, law enforcement officials have had to advise anyone suspected of a crime that they have a right to remain silent, that they are entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning even if they can’t afford one and that anything they say can be used against them in court.

Those are collectively known as one’s Miranda Rights. The United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in 1966 protecting those safeguards in the case of Miranda v. Arizona and ordered a new trial for Ernesto Miranda.

Still, various efforts have been mounted to chip away at Miranda’s broad protection.

Two months ago, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in a Nebraska case that suspects must be told of their right to see a lawyer before police try to obtain a confession from them. The case has been remanded and John Fellers, who argued his case all the way to the Supreme Court, will get an opportunity to have his 12-year federal sentence reversed. His case, Fellers v. United States, involved the distribution of methamphetamine.

In a different challenge to Miranda, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case out of Nevada involving the right to remain silent. The case began on the evening of May 21, 2000 when a bystander telephoned the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department in Winnemucca, Nev. to report that the driver of a pickup truck was striking his female companion.

According to court documents, Deputy Lee Dove responded to the scene and was directed to a truck parked on the side of Grass Valley Road. Larry Hiibel was standing next to the truck. The deputy approached Hiibel and asked him to identify himself. After Hiibel chose to remain silent each time he was asked to give his name, Deputy Dove handcuffed Hiibel and placed him under arrest. Hiibel was later convicted of delaying an officer, a crime under Nevada law. He was never tried or convicted on any other charge.

The Supreme Court of Nevada was sharply split in its 4-3 decision finding Hiibel guilty. The four judges in the majority said it was constitutional to arrest Hiibel for exercising his right to remain silent by refusing to identify himself. The three dissenting judges, on the other hand, issued an opinion stating that “being forced to identify oneself to a police officer or else face arrest is government coercion – precisely the type of governmental intrusion that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.”

This case pits the power of the government to compel a citizen to speak against his or her right to remain silent or rely on the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

Like many civil liberties issues, this case finds groups on the political Left and Right uniting to advocate on behalf of Hiibel.

In its friend-of-the-court brief, the libertarian Cato Institute observed, “If citizens have the right to voluntarily engage in conversations with police officers (and they assuredly do), they must also retain the option of declining to engage in such conversations –especially when the law enforcement agents are employing interrogation tactics that are purposely designed to have the citizen waive his right to reject a consensual stop or search or his right to silence.”

It continued, “If the government can criminalize citizen silence, citizens will no longer be able to rely upon their own wits when they find themselves confronted with law enforcement agents. There would simply be too much legal jeopardy.”

Ernesto Miranda, whose case spawned the landmark ruling, was given a second trial after the court ruled that he had not been properly advised of his rights. During his initial interrogation in 1963, which involved charges that he had stolen $8 from a Phoenix bank, Miranda not only admitted to the theft but also kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old female 11 days earlier, according to police. During the questioning, Miranda was never read his rights.

After the Supreme Court sent the case back for retrial, Miranda was convicted again of kidnapping and rape. He served 11 years and was paroled from prison in 1972. Four years later, Miranda got into a fight and was stabbed to death. Ironically, his suspected attacker was set free, in part, because he chose to assert his Miranda rights of silence.

If Miranda’s suspected killer can remain silent, the Supreme Court may have a hard time saying Hiibel could not maintain his silence in the face of unwanted police questioning.