The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that people do not have the right to sue police officers for violating their civil rights if law enforcement officers fail to provide a Miranda warning.
Justice Samuel Alito authored the 6-3 ruling that was joined by the high court’s Republican-appointed majority, determining that “a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment,” which is the statute that protects people against self-incrimination.
The case, Vega v. Tekoh, calls to question whether a person may state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer “simply on an officer’s failure to provide the warnings prescribed” in Miranda v. Arizona, the landmark 1966 decision that protects the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the “right to remain silent.”
SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS IF POLICE SHOULD BE SUED OVER FAILURE TO READ MIRANDA RIGHTS
More specifically, the case involves a procedural dispute stemming from a law enforcement officer’s failure to recite Miranda warnings to a California hospital worker, Terence Tekoh, who was accused of sexually assaulting a patient in 2014.
Alito wrote that “a violation of Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution, and therefore such a violation does not constitute ‘the deprivation of [a] right … secured by the Constitution’ that would authorize a civil rights suit against a police officer.”
While Thursday’s high court did not throw out the right to one’s defense against self-incrimination, police officers will not be held liable for failure to recite Miranda warnings.
President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice sided with Carlos Vega, a Los Angeles County sheriff deputy who questioned Tekoh but failed to deliver his Miranda warnings.
“Because the Miranda rule concerns the introduction of evidence at trial, a suspect may not sue the police officer under Section 1983 for violating that rule,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in court documents that backed the police.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices joined a dissent by Justice Elena Kagan, who said the court is significantly harming a constitutional right.
Kagan said that a defendant who is “wrongly convicted and spends years in prison” will no longer have any remedy for that harm.
<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1656003211312,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"00000180-f1c2-d76b-a9ef-ffc678330000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1656003211312,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"00000180-f1c2-d76b-a9ef-ffc678330000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"","_id":"00000181-917b-df44-ad8b-d37ba04a0002","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video Embed
