This article was added by the user . TheWorldNews is not responsible for the content of the platform.

The Supreme Court excludes suing police for violating Miranda

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday 6-3 that a defendant who admitted sexual assault despite not reading the Miranda warning, even if the statement was used against him. , Argued that it is not possible to make a claim to an officer. In court.

The Miranda Warning includes telling the suspect that he has the right to remain silent and is usually spoken at the time of arrest or before a statement is issued. The warning comes from Miranda v. Arizona in theSupreme Courtcase. 

"Miranda itself was clear in this regard. Miranda did not believe that a breach of the rule it established would necessarily constitute a fifth amendment breach." Samuel Alito In the court's opinion, the judge made extensive reference to Miranda's decision: "Instead, it only argued that those rules were needed to protect its rights during detention cross-examination," he added later. rice field.

Tekoh is a hospital nursing assistant and was accused of sexually assaulting apatient. He was not informed of the Miranda Warning, and after asking later, he wrote a statement that he confessed and apologized for his actions. 

The Supreme Court's gun decision defeats New York's rule to set a hidden carry-licensed horizontal bar

The statement was against him in a trial that was later admitted as evidence. He turned out to be innocent, but § against Carlos Vega, Deputy Sheriff of the CountyLos Angeles, for violating his constitutional rights because he did not read his rights before confessing. 1983 Raised a civil rights claim.

Arito, some after Miranda, to support his claim that the Miranda Warning itself is not a constitutional right, but a "precautionary" measure to protect the constitutional right. Cited the case of. The court noted that Tecoh may still argue that Miranda's rules are "federal law" and therefore may be the basis for a proceeding.

"But what else can be said about this argument6, Tekoh must convince us to extend this" law "to include the right to claim damages under §1983. If you don't, you can't succeed, "he said. ..

A police officer maintains a watch during a demonstration by victims of gun violence in front of the Supreme Court. 

Police officers during the demonstration by the victims Continued surveillance of gun violence in front of the Supreme Court.  (Joshua Roberts / Getty Images)

White House meets state court and aborts at the end of the Roe v. Wade case

Alito argued that it was problematic to allow such claims. It has already been decided by the state court in federal court. This is, as Arito wrote, "waste" and causes "unnecessary friction" between the state and thefederal court.

Judge Elena Kagan did not provide a Miranda warning because Miranda established constitutional rules granting rights in disagreement with the addition of Judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Claimed to violate the case. right.

Click here to get the Fox News app

"Today, courts have the ability to investigate individuals. Remedy for infringement granted in Miranda, who is depriving him. " She acknowledges that the majority opinion "acknowledges that the defendant may violate Miranda's procedure and seek" repression at the hearing of the obtained statement "", but in some cases "such statement is It will not be suppressed. "

As a result, Kagan wrote that the defendant would be harmed. In this regard, the 1983 claim provides relief, but the court's ruling "hurts the right by refusing the relief."