WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court today considered the future of Miranda warnings given by police — words Justice Stephen G. Breyer said "probably 2 billion people throughout the world know."

Ideological differences among the justices were on display as they worked toward deciding whether police must continue warning criminal suspects about their right against self-incrimination before questioning them, warnings that typically begin with "You have the right to remain silent."

Such warnings have been required ever since the Supreme Court's landmark 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona, but a federal appeals court ruling last year threw Miranda's future into doubt.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Congress effectively overturned Miranda when it enacted a 1968 law.

During today's hour-long argument session, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly challenged the idea that Miranda warnings are constitutionally required. If not, failure to give them would not require automatic exclusion of incriminating statements as trial evidence.

But Breyer and Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens resisted attempts to disparage the 34-year-old ruling, which Breyer called "a hallmark of American justice."

Justice Clarence Thomas, who remained silent, often votes with Rehnquist and Scalia in criminal justice cases. If so, the court's decision, expected by late June, will hinge on the votes of Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Both voiced concerns about the 1968 federal law, known as Section 3501, but their questions and comments did not appear to provide a sound basis for predicting their votes.

"It is this court that will ultimately decide whether the Constitution is satisfied" by the law Congress passed in reaction to the Miranda ruling, Solicitor General Seth Waxman told the justices.

Waxman, the Clinton administration's highest-ranking courtroom lawyer, urged the justices to strike down the federal law because "the case has not been made to overrule Miranda vs. Arizona."

But University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell argued that the Miranda ruling offered temporary guidelines only. "We now have appropriate congressional action," he said in urging the court to rule that Section 3501 satisfactory protects criminal suspects' rights.

The long-ignored federal law was thrust into prominence last year when a federal appeals court invoked it in the case of a Maryland man accused of robbing banks in Maryland and Virginia.

Charles Dickerson of Takoma Park, Md., reportedly made several incriminating statements to FBI agents after being arrested and charged with seven bank robberies. He says he did not receive a proper Miranda warning.

Neither Dickerson nor the federal prosecutors who had opposed his appeal to the 4th Circuit court focused on the 1968 law. But Cassell, representing the conservative Washington Legal Foundation as a friend of the court, sought to revive the dormant Section 3501. He won before the 4th Circuit court, spurring Dickerson's Supreme Court appeal.

The court, far more liberal 34 years ago than it is today, sought to remedy "inherently coercive" interrogations by creating bright-line guidelines in its Miranda ruling. Courts previously had used a "totality-of-the-circumstances test" to determine whether a confession or incriminating statement had been given to police voluntarily.

Section 3501 returns the law to pre-Miranda days, stating "the presence or absence" of any factor such as a Miranda warning "need not be conclusive on the issue of voluntariness."

The justices have received plenty of unsolicited advice in the form of friend-of-the-court briefs.

Among those arguing for the Miranda ruling's continued vitality are the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the House Democratic leadership.

Among those urging the court to uphold the appeals court's ruling are the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Police Organizations and 10 Republican senators.

Also siding with Cassell are 17 states: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.

The case is Dickerson vs. U.S., 99-5525.

Copyright© 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.