The Supreme Court will soon decide a Fifth Amendment-related case over whether a person accused of a crime can seek relief if a law enforcement officer failed to recite Miranda warnings.
Justices on Wednesday heard arguments in the case Vega v. Tekoh, which 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.
The case surrounds 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.
HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL COACH PRAYER CASE HIGHLIGHTS LAST OF 2022 SUPREME COURT CASES
During arguments, a majority of the justices appeared skeptical of Tekoh’s counsel. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett highlighted the 2000 case of Dickerson v. United States, saying that while the court has upheld Miranda on several occasions, a violation of Miranda doesn’t violate anyone’s “constitutional rights.”
In 2014, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Carlos Vega brought Tekoh to a private room to talk but did not advise Tekoh of his Miranda rights, including a notice of one’s right against self-incrimination while in police custody. The defendant was eventually found not guilty by a jury despite having his un-Mirandized statement introduced in the prosecution’s case.
Tekoh claims the officer accused him of groping the patient and lied about the incident being caught on camera. Following his acquittal, Tekoh sued Vega in federal court, accusing the officer of violating his rights by failure to Mirandize and accusing him of forcing a confession.
The Justice Department sided with Vega on Wednesday, challenging the plaintiff’s point that Miranda was a constitutional rule. In essence, since the Constitution does not mention the 1966 decision explicitly, it has become a “prophylactic” rule, according to the DOJ.
“It isn’t a substantive right to receive the Miranda warnings themselves,” Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri said Wednesday. “A police officer who fails to provide the Miranda warnings accordingly doesn’t himself violate the constitutional right.”
Justice Clarence Thomas offered a hypothetical to Suri, asking what happens in a situation if “a police officer lies?”
“Taking that as a hypothetical, however, we would say that there is no Miranda liability because we don’t see how the causation problem can be solved without creating a witness immunity problem in its place,” Suri replied.
Citing Dickerson, Barrett also said the case did not ever use the word “constitutional right,” adding that “it seemed very carefully worded to say ‘constitutional role’ or ‘constitutionally required.'”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The high court has been subject to criticism in recent years over rulings in which the justices offered law enforcement officers “qualified immunity” from being litigated for infringing on the rights of those who are arrested.
A decision in the case review Wednesday is expected by the end of the present high court session in June.
