Law enforcement officers who did not provide the Miranda warning to the criminal suspect prior to the cross-examination file a civil suit for the omission. I can not do it. The US Supreme Courtruledon Thursday. Judge determined to have received theMiranda Warningby voting
6-3 — Keep the detained individual silent, talk to a lawyer, and ask for the lawyer's presence Notify the right. Interacting with Police — Not a technically protected constitutional right.
The court's classification is that individuals deprived of the Miranda warning before a criminal cross-examination have no basis to make a legal claim after the fact that their civil rights have been infringed. Means. It effectively protects police officers from civil proceedings while limiting the protection of individuals against self-incrimination.
"Miranda's breach does not necessarily constitute a constitutional breach," said Samuel Alito, reflecting a conservative majority of courts. Judge Alito wrote. With that in mind, Arito said such violations "cannot approve civil rights proceedings against police officers."
Thursday's decision protects law enforcement officers from civil lawsuits over Miranda rights, but suspects during trial if comments are collected before the usual warnings are received. He also ruled that he could not blame them using his comments. The court stated that this provision should serve as a "complete and sufficient remedy" for officer violations. The
ruling is called Vega vs. Teco, which began in 2014 when Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Director Carlos Vega asked before giving a Miranda warning to healthcare worker Teren Steco accused of sexual assault. It happened in a California lawsuit.
Tekoh argued that Vega rejected his request to speak to a lawyer, prevented the cross-examination from leaving the sudden room, and forced him to write a confession. He was eventually found not guilty of a crime, but sued Vega in federal court for violating Miranda.
The three judges disagree, and in the case of the Miranda Warning, a court decision could force or pressure the suspect to confess a crime he had never committed. Insisted. It wasn't read.
"Today, courts are depriving individuals of their ability to seek relief for the infringement of rights granted in Miranda," added Judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Judge Elena Kagan wrote.
Defendants can challenge the use of statements in court, but "such statements may not be suppressed. As a result, defendants have been falsely convicted for years. Will also spend time in prison. " Cagan continued. "He may succeed in overturning the conviction in an appeal or personal protection, but what remedies does he have for all the harm he has suffered?"
Thursday's ruling is the latest Supreme Court ruling that prevents individuals from seeking civil damages from law enforcement officers after a breach of procedure. Earlier this month, the court filed a claim related to the use ofexcessive force during arrestand illegal retaliation in another 6-3 vote to protect border guards from civil lawsuits. did.
- In:
- US Supreme Court
- Police Officer
- Crime
Thank you for reading CBS NEWS.
Create a free account or log in to
to take advantage of other features.
