The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a case next year regarding the often cited, quite familiar and continually challenged Miranda rights.

Oral arguments for the case U.S. v. Patane will be heard this fall. In the case, police arrested Samuel Francis Patane for violating a restraining order. When he was arrested, the police began to read him his Miranda rights, but Patane cut them off, saying he knew his rights. Police then questioned him and he told them he had a pistol in his house.

Patane was not allowed to possess this pistol due to a prior felony conviction. The federal appeals court decided that the pistol, a .40-caliber Glock, could not be used as evidence in trial because the information regarding it was given by Patane before he was read his full rights. The Bush administration appealed.

The reoccurring problem with Miranda is that the original case was tailored to interrogation, not necessarily evidence seized because of the questioning. The court decided in the 1966 case that there needed to be safeguards to protect against violations of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination. It stated, “Prior to questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” Thus, the Miranda rights as we know them were born.

The high court heard a case on a similar issue in 2000. In the case, Dickerson v. United States, Chief Justice Rehnquist declared a law passed by Congress adding “voluntariness” as an admissibility test unconstitutional because it conflicted the Supreme Court ruling in Miranda, according to the New York Times.

The federal appeals court took this to mean Patane’s voluntary confession regarding the pistol was inadmissible, “Because Dickerson now concluded that an un-Mirandized statement, even if voluntary, is a Fifth Amendment violation.”

The issue of admitting hard evidence, even if seized without the suspect knowing their rights, is important. Letting obviously guilty criminals off on technicalities only puts society at risk.

But U.S. v. Patane is not the appropriate case to review this on. The officers started to do their job, but did not finish. No matter what the accused said, they should have continued to read his rights. The Supreme Court ruling on this case could set dangerous precedent for not completely reading a suspect their rights before interrogating them about physical evidence that could lead to self-incrimination of the person.

For now, the Miranda rights are the best way to protect against overzealous police and forced confessions. When the court rules on this case next year, they must beware of the implications it can have on the Fifth Amendment. The right to know what your rights are must be maintained.

Editorial Board: Cavan Reagan, Amber Billings, Ayrel Clark, Charlie Weaver, Katie List