The US Supreme Court on Thursday advised criminal suspects about their rights before obtaining a statement to be used against them later in court. Protected the police from the risk of paying monetary damages because they did not. With the Deputy Sheriff of Los Angeles County.
The judge has appealed a lower court decision to revive a proceeding by a hospital employee named Terence Tekoh who accused officers of infringing his rights under Article 5 of the US Constitutional Amendment. Argued 6-3 in favor of Carlos Vega Amendmental protection against self-incrimination.
Tekoh was charged with sexually assaulting a hospital patient after Vega obtained a written confession from him through a so-called Miranda warning without first notifying the suspect in his rights. .. Tekoh was acquitted in court.
The six Conservatives of the court accounted for the majority of the decisions written by Judge Samuel Alito, opposed by three liberal members.
The rights in question were portrayed in the Supreme Court's groundbreaking 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. Cross-examination prior to the statements they make may be used in criminal trials.
Vega was upheld by President Joe Biden's administration in the appeal.
The problem was that the court use of statements collected from suspects who had not been warned by Miranda could bring a civil suit against investigators under federal law. It was whether there was. Their constitutional rights.
In 2014, Vega claimed by a patient in a Los Angeles hospital that Tecoh, who was working as a facility clerk, improperly touched her when she was incapacitated in a hospital bed. I investigated. According to Vega, Tekov voluntarily provided a confession in writing, even if he was not arrested or detained.
Tekoh claims to have been cross-examined by Vega, who challenged the Vega version of the event and forced a false confession.
Tekoh was arrested for sexual assault and charged in state court. His conviction was found as evidence during the trial, but a jury acquitted him. Tekoh then sued Vega in federal court for violating the rights of Article 5 of the Constitutional Amendment by extracting the conviction without Miranda warning and leading it to be used against him in criminal charges. I did.
The jury reached a verdict in favor of Vega, but in 2021, the 9th San Francisco-based US Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial on the liability of officers.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violated the Fifth Amendment and caused financial damages to the officer who obtained the statement when using the statement taken without Miranda warning against the defendant in a criminal trial. I have found that it causes a claim for compensation.
A Vega lawyer who appealed to the Supreme Court said the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "would put an extraordinary burden on police stations across the country in connection with legal and proper investigative work." He said he threatened. Vega's lawyer added that "in effect, the interaction between police and suspected criminals" could lead to the responsibility of police officers.
