Supreme Court shields police from action for ignoring Miranda rights

Judge: Right against self-incrimination was not violated

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday shielded police from being sued by suspects for failing to provide Miranda warnings.

Ruling in the Los Angeles case Vega v. Tekoh, the justices voted 6-3 that the only remedy for a Miranda violation is to block the use in court of a suspect’s incriminating comments.

The court’s conservative majority described the Miranda warnings as guidelines that protect the right against self-incrimination. As such, the warnings, including the “right to remain silent,” are not themselves constitutional rights that could result in a separate action against the police.

But Miranda warnings remain intact. For a confession to be used in court, the suspect must have been warned in advance that he has a right to remain silent and that anything he says may be used against him court, they said.

In dissent, the liberal justices said the ruling weakens Miranda rights and may encourage the police to use pressure tactics against people they have in custody.

In past rulings, the court said that evidence revealed by a suspect may be used against him in court, even if no Miranda warning was given.

In one such case from 2004, a man refused to talk to police who came to his house, but agreed to show them where his gun was hidden. The firearm was then used to convict him of the crime of being a felon in possession of a gun.

At times in recent decades, police officers in California have been trained to continue questioning people held in custody, even if they have invoked their right to remain silent. These people sometimes reveal crucial details about a crime or about their involvement.

The case before the court began in 2014 when Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Carlos Vega was called to County-USC Medical Center 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 a full confession.

Tekoh told a very different story. He described an hourlong confrontation, saying the deputy closed the door and accused him of groping the patient, and falsely claimed the abuse was 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 he was required to write out and sign.

Tekoh was charged with a sexual offense and his confession introduced as evidence at his trial. Even so, the superior court 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 failure to give the Miranda warning alone did not violate his right against self-incrimination. The civil jury ruled for officer Vega.

Lawyers for Tekoh appealed, citing a 2000 Supreme Court ruling by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist that the Miranda decision was a constitutional ruling that could not be overturned by Congress.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in a 3-0 decision. Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said Rehnquist’s opinion “made clear that the right of a criminal defendant not to have an un-Mirandized statement introduced by the prosecution is indeed a right secured by the Constitution.”