New arrivalYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a 6-3 decision that the defendant, who admitted sexual assault despite not reading the Miranda warning, told officers, even if the statement was used against him in court. It was decided that the claim could not be made.
The Miranda Warning includes telling the suspect that he has the right to remain silent and is usually issued at the time of arrest or before a statement is issued. The warning comes from the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona.
“Miranda itself was clear in this regard. Miranda did not believe that a breach of the rules it established would necessarily constitute a Fifth Amendment breach, he referred extensively to Miranda’s decision. “Instead, it only claimed that those rules were needed to protect that right during detention cross-examination,” he added later.
Tekoh was a hospital nursing assistant accused of sexually assaulting a patient. He was not informed of the Miranda Warning, and after asking later, he wrote a statement that he confessed and apologized for his actions.
The Supreme Court’s gun decision shoots down New York rules that set high standards for hidden carry licenses
The statement was later admitted in court as evidence against him. He was acquitted, but filed a 1983 civil rights claim against Carlos Vega, deputy Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, for violating his constitutional rights because he did not read his rights before confessing. ..
Arito cited several post-Miranda cases to support his claim that the Miranda Warning itself is not a constitutional right, but a “precautionary” measure to protect it. The court noted that Tecoh may still argue that Miranda’s rules are “federal law” and therefore may be the basis for a proceeding.
“But nothing else about this dispute, 6, if Tecoh cannot convince him to extend this” law “to include the right to claim damages under § 1983,” he said. Stated.
The White House meets state AGS to plan abortion defense at the end of the Roe v. Wade incident
Arito would not allow such a claim as it would result in a federal court “arbitrating a de facto question already determined by the state court (whether Tecoh was detained when asked)”. Claimed that there was a problem. This is, as Arito wrote, “wasteful” and will cause “unnecessary friction” between state and federal courts.
Judge Elena Kagan disagrees with the addition of Judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, and Miranda has established constitutional rules that grant rights, so if she does not provide a Miranda warning, she violates that right. Insisted.
Click here to get the Fox News app
“Today, courts are depriving individuals of their ability to seek relief for the infringement of rights granted in Miranda,” Cagan wrote. She acknowledges that the majority opinion “acknowledges that the defendant may still seek” suppression in the hearing of the obtained statement “in violation of Miranda’s procedure,” but in some cases “such statement.” Is not oppressed. “
As a result, Kagan wrote that the defendant would be harmed. The claim in §1983 to that end provides a remedy, but the court’s ruling “hurts the right by denying the remedy.”