Addressing Misinformation on Miranda Rights

Updated: July 1st, 2022

In the shadow of Dobbs v. Jackson (which overturned Roe v. Wade), the Supreme Court has come to a decision in the case of Vega v. Tekoh. This decision regarding policy liability has led to a spread of misinformation on social media. This article is an attempt to clear up confusion on the subject of Miranda Rights and the 5th Amendment.

What is the Fifth Amendment? The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution in this context will refer to the constitutional guarantee to due process of the law and of the right to “remain silent” or to refuse to answer questions in court or during police interrogation in order to avoid incriminating oneself.

“No person shall…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”.

What is Miranda v. Arizona: The case of Miranda v. Arizona addressed the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination during police interrogation. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested, brought to the police station, and questioned by police officers.

The police obtained a written confession from Miranda, and the confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney, and the failure of police officers to advise Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation.

The jury found Miranda guilty, but after an appeal to the Supreme Court, it was ruled that the Fifth Amendment requires law enforcement to advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. Evidence obtained as a result of interrogation prior to Miranda warnings is not to be used against a defendant at trial.

What are your Miranda Rights?

1. You have the right to remain silent.

2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

3. You have the right to an attorney.

4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you.

What is Vega v. Tekoh? The case of Vega v. Tekoh began in 2014 when a Police Officer (Vega), in Los Angeles, questioned (and obtained a written admission of guilt from) Terence Tokah without issuing his Miranda warnings.

The writing was used to charge Tekoh with sexual assault. Tekoh was later acquitted by his jury, but following the trial, Tekoh sued Vega for “deprivation” of constitutional rights and privileges under a civil rights statute known as Section 1983.

The case answered the question: Can a defendant sue a police officer for violating their Constitutional rights by not giving them a Miranda warning? The answer is no.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “Miranda is a set of rules designed to protect the Fifth Amendment, rather than a Constitutional right”.

“In sum, a violation of Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution,” Justice Alito.

According to Vega v. Tekoh, violation of Miranda warnings is not grounds for a lawsuit under Section 1983.

How have your rights changed? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer cannot be sued for failing to advise detained subjects of their right to remain silent during an interrogation. It is a misunderstanding that this decision has overturned Miranda v. Arizona.

This decision has not overturned Miranda v. Arizona and your right to remain silent remains intact as well. This ruling also does not remove or reduce the police’s obligation to issue Miranda warnings. However, it will safeguard police from civil liability if they fail to comply with the issuing requirement.

Police officers cannot currently be sued for failing to advise a detained suspect of their right to remain silent during interrogation. This absence of liability surely reduces police incentive to read detainees their rights.

“That’s the sense in which this is a setback for the full promise of Miranda,” Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said of the court’s 6-3 ruling. Defendants following Vega v. Tekoh will continue to have the right to have their un-Mirandized statements excluded at trial. In essence, rights will still be violated, and police will not be held personally responsible.

Conclusion:

Today, the Court strips individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda. The majority observes that defendants may still seek ‘the suppression at trial of statements obtained’ in violation of Miranda’s procedures. But sometimes, such a statement will not be suppressed. And sometimes, as a result, a defendant will be wrongly convicted and spend years in prison. He may succeed, on appeal or in habeas, in getting the conviction reversed. But then, what remedy does he have for all the harm he has suffered? The point of § 1983 is to provide such redress—because a remedy ‘is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees.’ The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy. Closing dissent written by Justice Kagan

Justice Kagan makes an important point in her dissent regarding the U.S. justice system. Just because un-Mirandized statements are meant to be suppressed in court, does not mean they always will be. Our justice system is flawed and often makes mistakes (ex: police officers “forgetting” to issue Miranda warnings).

For this reason–and others– it is important to stay updated on your Constitutional and legal rights. Familiarize yourself with the Bill of Rights, familiarize yourself with state laws, and be proactive when it comes to protecting yourself using the Fifth Amendment specifically.