Criminal suspects now have less legal recourse if police officers fail to read them their Miranda rights – that they have a “right to remain silent” and to a lawyer – as the Supreme Court Government on Thursday that law enforcement cannot be prosecuted for violating Americans’ civil rights if they fail to inform people about their Miranda rights, even if the suspect pleads guilty.
“Miranda Rights,” which was first established by the Supreme Court in a separate 1996 caseCriminal suspects are read informing them of their rights when they are arrested, and that “anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.”
The court ruled 6-3 Thursday against a man who was questioned by law enforcement after being accused of sexual assault and not read his Miranda rights, which resulted in him issuing a written statement to him. Had to apologize for the offense which was used in the trial against him. ,
The justices held that Terence Tekoh could not sue the police officer who interrogated him, Carlos Vega, for allegedly violating his Fifth Amendment rights against “forced self-incrimination” by not reading his Miranda rights.
Writing for the majority of the court, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that violating the court’s previous ruling that established Miranda rights was not the same as violating the Fifth Amendment, and so Vega did not read Tekoh, her rights. did not violate the Civil Rights Act. People sue “deprived of any right, privilege or immunity protected by the Constitution and the laws”.
The ruling doesn’t mean law enforcement will stop reading suspects their Miranda rights, but it does mean it’s harder to enforce the law and hold them legally accountable if they don’t.
Alito noted that the statements obtained by the suspects that did not read their Miranda rights could still be suppressed during trial—which the judge still denied in Tekoh’s case when it went to trial. but argued that even letting the suspects sue law enforcement “would have” little added deterrent value. ,