Washington ? The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it would consider further limitations on constitutional protections that are intended to ensure people know their rights before police question them.

In a case that could have broad implications for so-called Miranda warnings (“You have the right to remain silent,” etc.), the court will decide whether physical evidence obtained when police fail to give the warnings can be used at trial.

Already, the court has said certain kinds of evidence can be admissible in court despite Miranda violations. But in a strongly worded opinion three years ago in Dickerson v. United States, an overwhelming court majority reaffirmed Miranda’s basic principles.

The case the justices will hear springs from Colorado, where Samuel Francis Patane was arrested outside his house in 2001 for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Police and a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent had begun to read Patane his rights when Patane interrupted them, saying he knew what they were. The authorities then questioned him about a gun they had heard was in his house, Patane admitted to having it and permitted a search.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said the gun the police found couldn’t be used against Patane because it was the fruit of a search conducted without proper Miranda warnings.

But U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued that the appeals court was wrong, saying that because Patane voluntarily submitted to questioning, earlier court rulings would have permitted the use of the gun as evidence, and the Dickerson case didn’t change that.