OXNARD, Calif. - Maybe you don't have a right to remain silent after all.

The Supreme Court in its famous Miranda ruling told police that they must respect the rights of people who are held for questioning. Officers must warn them of their right to remain silent, and, equally important, honor their refusal to talk further.

But that widely known rule is about to be reconsidered in the Supreme Court in the case of a California farm worker who was shot five times after a brief encounter with police. Legal experts say the case has the potential to reshape the law governing everyday encounters between police and the public.

While the farm worker lay gravely wounded, a police supervisor pressed him to talk, to explain his version of the events. He survived, paralyzed and blinded, and sued the authorities, alleging, among other things, coercive interrogation.

But Oxnard police assert that the Miranda ruling does not include a "constitutional right to be free of coercive interrogation," only a right not to have forced confessions used at trial.

Bush administration lawyers have sided with police in the case. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Dec. 4.

Police can hold people in custody and force them to talk as long as their incriminating statements are not used to prosecute them, U.S. Solicitor Gen. Theodore B. Olson and Michael Chertoff, chief of the Justice Department's criminal division, say in their brief to the court.

Legal experts on the other side of the case foresee far-reaching effects if police prevail.

"This will be, in essence, a reversal of Miranda," said Susan Klein, professor of law at the University of Texas. "Officers will be told Miranda is not a constitutional right. If there is no right, and you are not liable, why should you honor the right to silence?" she asked. "I think it means you will see more police using threats and violence to get people to talk. Innocent people will be subjected to very unpleasant experiences."

It was early evening on a late November day five years ago when Oliverio Martinez, 29, rode his bicycle down a path and across a vacant lot heading toward a row of small homes.

Two officers, Andrew Salinas and Maria Pena, had stopped to question a man they suspected - wrongly it turned out - of selling drugs. When they heard the squeaky bike approach in the dark, they called for the rider to stop.

Martinez got off his bike and put his hands over his head. In a leather sheath on a waist band, he carried a long knife that he used to cut strawberries.

When the officer patted him down and grabbed for the knife, Martinez tried to run. Salinas tackled him and tried to handcuff him. As they struggled on the ground, the officer called out that the man had a huge knife. Pena moved closer and fired.

One bullet struck Martinez near the left eye and exited behind his right eye. A second hit his spine. Three more shots hit his legs.

When patrol supervisor Sgt. Ben Chavez arrived, the handcuffed man lay bleeding on the ground. Once Martinez was loaded into an ambulance, Chavez climbed in with a tape recorder in hand.

On and off for the next 45 minutes, he repeatedly asked the gravely wounded man to admit he had grabbed the officer's gun and provoked the struggle. In agony, Martinez is heard screaming in pain and saying he is choking and dying.

Lawyers for Martinez say that he panicked when the officer tried to tackle him but that he did not grab the officer's gun.

In the emergency room, Martinez is heard asking Chavez several times to leave him alone: "I don't want to say anything anymore."

Silence came only when the pain medication took hold, and Martinez faded into unconsciousness.

Martinez sued Oxnard police, accusing officers of illegal arrest, the use of excessive force and coercive interrogation in police custody.

Under a post-Civil War law, city and state officials, including police officers, can be sued in federal court if they violate a person's constitutional rights.

David G. Savage is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Publishing newspaper.