“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 for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
A piece of literature used on countless cop shows and movies over the ages.
Occasionally on police Facebook pages, discussions over dinner and brown water or beer, etc., the subject many cops discuss is the most unrealistic portrayal of policing on television or movies. Without exception, the most mentioned falsehood is every cop immediately reads a Miranda warning. That is the moment a person is detained, arrested, or asked questions, they must be read their rights from a card or something like that. That is incorrect. I actually had an idiot, excuse me, citizen, demand I read them their rights as I was writing them a ticket for speeding.
This came up with some of my law enforcement brethren over discussion of the latest issue at the Supreme Court. Can a deputy be sued by the man he arrested because he didn’t read him his rights? Personally I find the thought ridiculous. If a cop abuses his authority (e.g., assaults a prisoner, uses his authority to get sexual favors from a suspect, lies on a report or sworn statement), he is already criminally and civilly liable. However, expanding this to leaving him open to lawsuits on settled law will only make cops less willing to enforce the law.
SCOTUS hears case over L.A. deputy who didn’t read Miranda rights
The case asks if officers who don’t provide a Miranda warning can be sued for violating a suspect’s constitutional rights
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices, hearing arguments Wednesday in a Los Angeles case, sounded ready to shield police from civil lawsuits for failing to provide Miranda warnings to suspects.
The case — arising from a 2014 confrontation between a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy and a hospital nursings assistant — seeks to answer for the first time whether officers who don’t provide a Miranda warning can be sued for violating a suspect’s constitutional rights. Such lawsuits would be in addition to having any coerced confessions thrown out of court.
The court’s conservatives agreed Wednesday that the landmark 1966 Miranda decision bars forced confessions from being used in court. But they were skeptical of “extending” it to allow damage suits against officers who don’t advise a suspect of the right to remain silent or consult a lawyer.
The outcome could have an effect on everyday encounters between police and people they question, some legal experts warn, if officers cannot be held liable for violating the Miranda rules.
At issue before the court Wednesday was the long-running debate over how to understand the Miranda decision and its required warnings…
Things to remember on this matter. The Miranda Warnings are there to advise someone suspected of a crime, i.e. has not been convicted in a court yet. They are not asking for a cop to be arrested for any crime, malfeasance or official oppression, but to pay a suspect he arrested. I think that will make me less likely to arrest someone for committing a crime. I won’t be the only cop who thinks like that.
…Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Carlos Vega was called to County-USC Medical Center in 2014 to investigate a patient’s complaint that an orderly had sexually assaulted her. The officer said nurses told him that Terence Tekoh had transported the heavily sedated patient to her room.
Vega said he took Tekoh to a private room to talk, and the orderly admitted he had “made a mistake” and agreed to write out a full confession.
Tekoh told a very different story, describing an hourlong confrontation. He said the deputy closed the door, accused him of groping the patient and falsely claimed the abuse had been captured on video.
Tekoh said that he asked to speak with a lawyer but that the deputy refused, blocked him from leaving and dictated a confession that he was required to write out and sign.
Tekoh was charged with a sexual offense, and his confession was introduced as evidence at his trial. Even so, the jury found him not guilty.
The orderly then sued Vega in federal court, accusing the deputy of violating his rights by not advising him of his rights and forcing him to confess to a crime.
A federal judge said Tekoh must prove the confession was coerced because the deputy’s failure to give the Miranda warnings alone did not violate his right against self-incrimination. The civil jury ruled for Vega.
Lawyers for Tekoh appealed and cited a 2000 Supreme Court ruling by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist that said the Miranda decision was a constitutional ruling that could not be overturned by Congress.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and said Rehnquist’s opinion “made clear that the right of a criminal defendant against having an un-Mirandized statement introduced in the prosecution’s case in chief is indeed a right secured by the Constitution…”
…In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Vega’s appeal. He argued that while the Miranda decision was designed to protect the right against self-incrimination, it does “not itself create a constitutional right.” Therefore, Vega and other police officers may not be sued for failing to give Miranda warnings, his lawyers said…
This brings up a critical point, the difference between an interview and an interrogation. An interview is for basic, non-incriminating information, e.g., names, address, phone numbers, etc. An interrogation is a “process of questioning by which police obtain evidence,” and evidence is by definition incriminating. Now looking back at the 5th And 6th Amendments, which are the basis of the Miranda vs Arizona ruling (Emphasis mine):
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime … nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 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…
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury… and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
If a cop lawfully detains you (Note, not arrest, but detain), at that moment a law enforcement officer can require you to identify yourself. In Texas, if someone has been legally detained (e.g. matches the description of a suspect), and refuses, that is a misdemeanor crime. But do you need to be advised of your rights a this moment? The answer is no. Your name, address, phone number, etc are not incriminating and do not violate the 5th Amendment.
I’ve arrested countless people during my career, but in over 20 years on the street, I have read the “Miranda Card” twice. Once time I was directed to by an investigator, and the other time I was stupid. I read him his rights, and a Homicide supervisor made it very clear I was never to do that again. It can make the job of the investigator conducting the actual interrogation so much harder.
From reading the report and the questions of the justices, it’s no likely this court will “find” a right to sue a first responding officer for not advising a suspect of their right, especially in this case. The defendant is already free from criminal liability (Double jeopardy), and if an interrogating officer fails to advise a suspect of his rights, that fact can get a case tossed. It appears Mr. Tekoh is looking for a payout, hoping to have the sheriff on the hook. Hopefully the six Republican appointed justices see through this and send it to the dust pan of jurisprudence.
Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.
Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
I imagine we could fill the website with articles on just this topic. With respect to Miranda warnings, I also emphasized when training that Miranda was implicated as a result of custody and questioning. Spontaneous statements that are not the product of questioning may be used against a defendant even if no warning has been given, and the warning does not always need to be the version that is highlighted here (I always cringe when I hear “…can AND WILL be used against you…”).
Ironically, when I was assigned to the local FBI RA on a fugitive task force for a couple of years, we were required to note in our 302 that we gave the Miranda warnings to each arrestee. Since we mostly were arresting those wanted for other investigators cases, you touch on the danger that can arise, even though I can’t recall anyone ever invoking with us (though there was one case I remember where the documentation was able to establish a statement given was voluntary, and sent a sex offender to prison for a probation violation).
I know. I was speaking with a friend on this matter a few years ago, a point he made. Back in the early days of Hollywood, the AMA got with the powers that be in movie studios and said they would have a medical advisory board for pictures. This way the writers would have professional advise so they would not present a false impression of the state of medicine, e.g., cancer can be cured by blue berries or something else.
Unfortunately the ABA didn’t provide a similar board.
Have a great weekend.