Washington ? The Supreme Court narrowly upheld the Miranda warnings Monday, ruling that police officers may not use confessions they have obtained by questioning a suspect first and warning her of her rights to remain silent afterward.

In a 5-4 decision, the court called this police tactic a deliberate effort to skirt the Miranda decision. They threw out a Missouri woman’s confession to plotting to cover up the death of her disabled child by setting her mobile home on fire.

But in a second 5-4 decision, the court upheld the use of physical evidence, such as a gun, which was obtained by questioning a suspect without fully warning him of his rights.

In the first case, the justices said they were troubled that the police in this case — and in others from California — believed that they could fool a suspect into confessing before warning her of her rights.

If the Miranda decision is going to stand, police cannot evade it so easily, the court said.

“The Miranda rule has become an important and accepted element of the criminal justice system,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, and a “deliberate violation of Miranda” cannot stand.

In recent years, police in some states have been encouraged in training sessions to question a suspect in hopes of learning what happened. Then, if the suspect admits involvement, the officer gives him the warnings that his words may be used against him in court. If the suspect then agrees to repeat the confession, his words may be used in court, or so trainers had suggested.

But in Missouri v. Seibert, the Supreme Court said this “deliberate two-step strategy” violated the Constitution and its right against self-incrimination.

In the second 5-4 decision, the court said “reliable” physical evidence should not be thrown out simply because it was obtained from a suspect who had not waived his rights.

In that case, police and federal agents in Colorado Springs, Colo., went to arrest Samuel Patane in connection with violating a restraining order and harassing a former girlfriend. As they put him in handcuffs, they asked him where his gun was.

“I am not sure I should tell you anything about the Glock because I don’t want you to take it away from me,” Patane said.

But when the officer persisted, the suspect said the gun was in the bedroom. The police officers picked it up and, based on this evidence, Patane later was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

But a federal judge ruled that the police violated the Miranda rules by questioning the handcuffed man without fully warning him of his rights. If so, said the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, the evidence must be thrown out and his conviction overturned.