(CNN)Supreme CourtdecidesMiranda rightsThe suspect, who was not warned about the right to remain silent, said police could not sue police for damages under federal citizenship law, even if the evidence was ultimately used in a criminal trial.
A court ruling reduces an individual's protection against self-incrimination by eliminating the possibility of claiming damages. Also, neglecting to manage warnings does not expose law enforcement officers to potential damages in civil proceedings. However, it does not affect the exclusion of such evidence in criminal trials.
The court has made it clear that the Miranda Warning protects constitutional rights, but the warning itself is not a right to induce the ability to file a civil suit.
"Today's ruling does not preclude Miranda's rights," said Steve Vladek, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas Faculty of Law. "But that makes enforcement much more difficult. Under this ruling, the only remedy for Miranda's breach is to suppress statements made by suspects who are not properly informed about the right to remain silent. However, if the case cannot be brought to justice, or if the government refuses to use the statement, or if the statement is granted despite a violation of Miranda, there is no remedy for the government's illegal activity. "
Judge Samuel Arito, with the addition of five other Republican-appointed judges, said the infringement of Miranda's right was "not in itself a violation of Article 5 of the Constitutional Amendment" and "the expansion of Miranda. I don't see any legitimacy. " To give you the right to sue, "under the relevant law.
Judge Elena Kagan, with the addition of other liberal judges, stripped the court's decision of "an individual capable of seeking relief for the infringement of rights granted in Miranda." He said he was.
"Most of the people here, like anywhere else, are hurting their rights by refusing remedies," she added.
The case involved Terence Tekoh, a hospital employee accused of sexually assaulting a female patient who was stuck in a local hospital in 2014.
The question was not whether the defendant had to read Miranda. Rights, but whether he can sue an officer for damages if he does not receive the Miranda Warning for evidence introduced in a criminal procedure. The lower court has divided on this issue.
Carlos Vega, a deputy officer of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, was unable to read his rights as required by the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona case, but asked Tekov. .. "Right to remain silent". Under that precedent, without Miranda warning, criminal courts are generally prohibited from admitting statements of self-incrimination made while the defendant was in custody.
Tekoh eventually confessed to the crime and was acquitted after being tried after being confessed in the trial. He then sued officers under Article 1983 of the Federal Law, which allowed damages proceedings against government officials for violating constitutional rights.
The parties disagreed whether Vega used coercive techniques to extract involuntary confessions.
Vega's lawyer said Tekoh's remarks were completely consensual and voluntary and were not technically "detained" at the time, but Tekoh's lawyer said in the window. He claimed to have been bullied to confess in a room that wasn't there.
Vega's lawyer, Roman Martinez, said Teco could not raise his claim because proving Miranda's breach did not prove a breach of Article 5 of the Constitutional Amendment.
"Miranda has created a procedural rule prohibiting prosecutors from introducing certain unwarned statements as part of the prosecutor's presidency in criminal trials and allowing the court to approve. Martinez argued in court documents.
For Martinez, the Miranda Warning is a constitutional rule, it is not a right, and proceedings cannot proceed under its interpretation. "Miranda does not prohibit making unwarned statements, which simply prohibits subsequent approval of such statements in court," Martinez argued.
He said the Court of Appeals' ruling in favor of Tecoh "puts an extraordinary burden on police stations across the country in connection with legal and proper investigation work." According to Martinez, the interaction with the police "can lead to private proceedings, even if police officers act completely legally."
Martinez praises Thursday's ruling. "We have confirmed that we cannot sue Deputy Secretary Vega for his sincere efforts to investigate alleged sexual assault in unprotected inpatients."
"As the court explained, the picture Miranda's decision in time establishes important precautionary rules that protect the right to the fifth amendment from compulsory self-crime, "he added. "
The Biden administration upheld Vega.
" Miranda's rule concerns the introduction of evidence in court, and the suspect accused him of violating that rule, Article 1983. Police officers cannot be sued on the basis of, "General Elizabeth Prelogger insisted in court documents.
Tekoh's lawyer refused to accept Tekoh's refusal, "keeping his hand on the firearm," and threatened Vega to report Tekoh and his family to me. Immigrants. Tekoh has a green card and deportation could lead to persecution in Cameroon.
Tekoh's lawyer, Paul Hoffman, said Vega was "a central actor in a series of events that directly led to the statement presented at the trial."
This story has been updated with additional reports.
