Washington ? The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider limits on police questioning, revisiting its landmark 1966 Miranda ruling that officers must warn people they arrest of their right to remain silent and see a lawyer.

Justices will review an appeal from a convicted drug dealer who said his confession was wrongly obtained when police came to his home after getting an indictment.

The court is expected to use the case to clarify when officers must notify criminal suspects of their rights.

John J. Fellers was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, but he maintains that his constitutional rights were violated when police interviewed him at his home, then again after reading him his Miranda rights at the jail. He said the first interview tainted the second jailhouse interrogation.

Fellers, who is serving his time in an Illinois penitentiary, had lost an appeal at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. His Supreme Court case is unusual in that Fellers had no lawyer and wrote his own “pauper” appeal.

“It is clear that once a defendant is indicted, the government may not deliberately elicit information from him without the presence of counsel,” Fellers wrote in his appeal.

He said that because of the pending indictment, the officers should have notified him of his rights during the 2000 questioning.

A decision is expected soon from the court in another police questioning case, involving the interrogation of a wounded farmworker who was shot repeatedly by police and then subjected to a lengthy interrogation as he awaited medical treatment. The worker was never told of his Miranda right to remain silent, and he says a sergeant kept questioning him even after he said that he did not want to answer.

The matter to be decided in that case, from California, is whether the officer can be sued.

At issue in Fellers’ case is whether his confession could be used against him.

In 2000, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in a 7-2 decision that police must warn the people they arrest of their right to remain silent when questioned. Suspects must be told that anything they say may be used against them, they can remain silent or have a lawyer’s help while answering, and that a lawyer will be appointed to help them if they cannot afford to hire one.