On Nov. 28, 1997, Sgt. Ben Chavez, a police officer in Oxnard, Calif., questioned Oliverio Martinez without reading him the Miranda warning -- an alleged violation of Martinez's constitutional rights.

The incident has led to a United States Supreme Court case that holds the fate of the required Miranda warning in limbo.

The Miranda rights inform citizens of five basic points -- the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right to avoid self-incrimination, the right to ask for an attorney at any point during an interrogation, and that these rights are not conditional.

Local officials and students have split reactions to the case.

"As I understand it, I think that the elimination of Miranda ... would undermine the legitimacy of the [legal] process because it would not be clear that the suspect was aware of his or her rights," said Lisa Miller, assistant professor of crime, law, and justice and political science.

She said much of the reason the Miranda warnings came about was because police "had free reign" in the past.

Local attorney William 'Skip' Arbuckle, a partner at the Mazza Law Group, said he also thinks the Miranda rights are important because they monitor police conduct and keep citizens' rights from being violated.

"I don't think the government should have the power to go after people without a system of checks and balances," he said.

Arbuckle said he believes a skilled police officer can get anyone to confess anything.

So, reading of the rights should not be considered a restraint, Arbuckle added.

However, Penn State Police Supervisor Clifford Lutz said he feels taking away the Miranda rights would not result in police corruption.

He said that, unlike in the 1960s, today's police "have the educational requirements that it is no longer a political patronage job." However, Lutz said, "the Supreme Court tells us that they're [the Miranda warnings] ultimately important."

Lutz also said part of what the Supreme Court has to decide is if these rights are basic knowledge that most people know.

Arbuckle added that it is a test of reason, all coming down to if the suspect understood he had those rights.

But Miller said it is too much to ask of citizens to uphold their rights under arrest situations.

Miller said she feels that the police, therefore, need to secure these constitutional rights.

Student Maryarha Houston (junior-crime, law and justice) agreed.

"Everybody is not smart enough to know [their rights]," said Houston.

"It's the cops' job to tell you what you do and do not have a right to," Houston added.

After the events of Sept. 11, experts have said that the court's putting an end to these warnings could be helpful when questioning terrorism suspects, The Associated Press reported.

Lutz did not care to comment on the situation, saying that aspect of the issue is speculation.

Penn State police, to prevent any charges of violating Miranda rights, ask the accused to sign a form stating they read their rights, had their rights read to them, and that they understood them, Lutz said.