Supreme Court Limits Enforcement of Miranda Rights
Under the string of Supreme Court rulings last week lies one ruling that many see as the dismantling of legal protections for individuals arrested by law enforcement.
In the 6-3 conservative majority ruling of Vega v. Tekoh, the Supreme Court overruled an element of the 1967 case, Miranda v. Arizona. Under Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution's 5th amendment which protects against self-incrimination requires that individuals who are arrested be read their Miranda Rights. If an individual's rights are not read to them, they have the right to sue police officers for damages. Under the Supreme Court’s latest ruling, individuals will no longer be able to pursue civil lawsuits against officers if their Miranda rights are not read.
For over half a century, Miranda. v Arizona put in place the law enforcement practice of reading an individual their rights. The right which has been ingrained in the memory of Americans all across the nation thanks to Hollywood's implementation of it goes 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 the presence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you prior to any questioning.”
This warning was long seen as a way for individuals who were arrested to know what their rights are so that they do not unwittingly self-incriminate. When an officer Mirandizes an individual or reads them their rights, anything the individuals say can be used against them in a court of law. However, if an individual is not Mirandized, whatever they say cannot be used against them, making it difficult for law enforcement to prosecute them.
Thursday's ruling comes as a result of Vega v. Tekoh in which an individual's constitutional right to getting Mirandized was challenged. Justice Sam Alito wrote for the conservative majority opinion and explained that because Miranda rights are not constitutional rights, but rather a constitutional rule, individuals do not have the right to sue In federal court if they're not Mirandized. Before the ruling, individuals had the right to sue under a federal law called Section 1983. Under Section 1983, individuals who feel their constitutional rights have been violated are allowed to file a lawsuit against state officials. Their lawsuits also enable them to receive financial compensation; however, the goal was not to obtain a monetary reward, but rather to keep law enforcement committed to giving individuals their Miranda rights during an arrest in order to keep them from incriminating themselves.
The ruling in Vega v. Tekoh takes the opposite approach to the 2000 decision in Dickerson v. U.S. In that case, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Mirandizing an individual had become “part of our national culture” and called Miranda a “constitutional rule.” In his dissent in Dickerson, former Justice Antonin Scalia detailed that if Miranda rights are not a constitutional right, but are a constitutional rule, how does the Supreme Court have the authority to require them?
While the Supreme Court's ruling in Vega v. Tekoh does not take away an individual's right to be Mirandized, it does take away an individual's ability to sue the state if they are not. Justice Elena Kagan writes in her dissent explaining, “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 section 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.”
Those opposed to the Supreme Court's ruling worry that this could be the first step of several that would dismantle an individual's protections against law enforcement, which is a topic that's already yielded division throughout the nation.
