You Have The Right To Remain Silent! Or Do You?
July 2022 | Jesse Fager, Staff Writer/Editor
Recently, the Supreme Court has been highlighted in the news, as related to the overturning of Roe v. Wade (1973). Since this has been more prominent in the media, another legal case has fallen through the cracks—despite its severe implications regarding the 5th and 6th amendment rights. Vega v. Tekoh (2022) ruled that police are not liable in civil court if they fail to read someone’s Miranda warnings. The Miranda warnings were first established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which required police to read a set of statements after an individual was arrested. These statements are as follows: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you. Do you understand the rights that I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”[1] The main disagreement in Vega was whether or not these Miranda warnings are constitutional rights, but answering this question requires in-depth knowledge of Miranda to understand the reasoning for the creation of the Miranda warnings in the first place.
The Miranda warnings' history started with a famous legal case, Miranda v. Arizona. In a 5-4 decision, the Court gave citizens the right to be informed of certain constitutional rights by the police, such as the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination.[2] This case arose when Ernesto Miranda was arrested and accused of kidnapping and raping a woman. He was then subjected to a 2-hour interrogation, during which he confessed to the crimes. After that point, since he was not aware of his 5th and 6th amendment rights, lawyers contended that Miranda was not given fair legal advice/counsel.[3] Eventually, this case went up to the Supreme Court, which changed the criminal procedure and created the Miranda warnings. In the dissent, however, Justice Harlan and Justice White argued that the majority opinion lacked support in the Constitution since no explicit clause mandates the right to have Miranda warnings read to an individual.
Interestingly enough, the majority opinion in Vega had a similar thought process to the dissenters from Miranda. In Vega v. Tekoh, Terrence Tekoh was accused of sexually assaulting a patient in the hospital where he worked at. Deputy Carlos Vega then interrogated Tekoh, failing to read his Miranda warnings before starting the interrogation. As a result of the interrogation, Tekoh wrote an official letter apologizing for sexually assaulting a patient. Tekoh was nonetheless found not guilty and decided to sue Vega for violating his rights under Section 1983 of the United States Code.[4] Section 1983 refers to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows people to sue the government for constitutional rights violations.[5] Tekoh argued that a violation of Miranda constitutes a violation of the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.[6] However, the Supreme disagreed, and in a 6-3 decision, the Court concluded that one cannot hold a police officer liable if they fail to read Miranda warnings to a suspect in custody. Although Tekoh alleged that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the Miranda warnings, the Court emphasized that Miranda warnings are simply “prophylactic rules,” not constitutional rights.[7] In short, Miranda warnings are no longer deemed constitutional rights in and of themselves, but rather preventative measures to ensure that individuals understand their rights to self-incrimination and to an attorney. However, the dissent in Vega pointed out an important detail: if Miranda warnings are necessary to safeguard the 5th and 6th amendment rights of individuals, then this ruling undermines those rights entirely by not considering a Miranda violation a deprivation of a constitutional right.
So, what’s next for Miranda warnings? Well, the ruling in Vega v. Tekoh did not completely overturn Miranda v. Arizona. As such, the requirement to have the Miranda warnings read to an individual in custody is still in effect. However, there are ways in which law enforcement can bypass the Miranda warning requirement. Under the exclusionary rule, courts cannot use evidence gathered in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and this rule is supported through case law grounded in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments.[8] Even though this aims to prevent police from questioning an individual without informing them of their rights, police officers are not required to say the Miranda warnings if the individual is not officially in custody. This means that it’s common practice for police to not arrest individuals prior to interrogation, and anything an individual says to law enforcement voluntarily is not subject to the exclusionary rule. Even if an un-Mirandized statement is procured, there are other avenues to get these statements in court. This is because prosecutors have been known to use confessions like these as an attack on someone’s character or credibility rather than for the truth of the matter. And now, as a result of Vega, if prosecutors use an un-Mirandized statement that has a confession embedded into it and the defendant is later acquitted, then the defendant would not be able to sue the police for that.[9]
In conclusion, the ruling of Vega v. Tekoh has major implications when it comes to the right to have Miranda warnings read to an individual. Under this new case law, people are not able to hold police liable if the police fail to read their Miranda warnings after they are in custody. As such, the future of Miranda warnings is unclear, as now there is no accountability and subsequently no motivation for police to read the warnings. Ultimately, by denying people these rights, the Court has further widened the gap between what is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the ability to hold the government accountable for its actions.
Sources
“What Are Your Miranda Rights?” Miranda Warning. (n.d.).
“Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).” Justia Law.
Ibid.
“Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. (2022).” Justia Law.
“42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.” Legal Information Institute.
“Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. (2022).” Justia Law.
Ibid.
“Exclusionary Rule.” Legal Information Institute. (n.d.).
Micah, Schwartzbach, “Miranda Rights: What Happens If the Police Don't Read You Your Rights.” Nolo, July 3, 2022.