Washington (AP) — You have the right to remain silent. Everyone knows that police are not supposed to ask suspects without reading Miranda’s rights.
But what if law enforcement officers didn’t read the suspect’s rights first? The Supreme Court on Wednesday worked on whether a sheriff’s agent could be sued for financial damages for violating the rights of hospital staff accused of sexually assaulting a patient.
The question is whether the familiar Miranda Warning, which the court admitted in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision and reaffirmed 34 years later, is a constitutional right or has a less clear position.
The incident began when a woman with a stroke said she had been assaulted in a hospital in Los Angeles and identified hospital employee Terence Tekov as an attacker. Carlos Vega, deputy Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, spoke with Tekov, who signed a statement confessing the assault.
Both sides agree that Vega has not read Tekov’s rights prior to the conversation at the hospital. However, they are divided on whether Tecoh was forced to confess.
Despite the statement used against him in the trial, the jury acquitted Tecoh in a criminal accusation. Tecoh then turned around and sued Vega. Vega has won two civil court cases over his actions. However, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that Tecoh should have another chance.
The agent appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
Federal law, known as Section 1983, allows people to sue police officers and other civil servants for infringement of constitutional rights.
Judge Elena Kagan said she was afraid that if the court ruled Vega, the consequences would “weaken Dickerson” in the 2000 decision written by the late Judge William Rehnquist. He criticized Miranda’s decision, but said it was still incorporated into American culture.
Meanwhile, some judges said Rehnquist seemed to have carefully chosen his words in his opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was Rehnquist’s Justice Officer over 40 years ago, said his former boss “did not say that Miranda was included in the Constitution. He talked about the foundations of the Constitution, the foundations of the Constitution. Did.”
Lawyers from the Vega and Biden administrations also argued that civil proceedings were ultimately not the cause of any infringement and should not be granted to police officers. They alleged that the defendant’s rights were violated only if the prosecutor decided to use the statement obtained without the Miranda warning in the trial.
But Vivek Suri, a lawyer at the Justice Department, said, “I think Miranda is a constitutional right.”
Paul Hoffman, on behalf of Tekoh, said his client had no other legal option if he couldn’t sue Vega. “I stand here on behalf of Mr. Tecoh, who was acquitted, and there is no remedy other than the 1983 breach. His life was destroyed by these actions,” he said.
Vega v. The decision at Tekoh, 21-499 is scheduled for late June.