Supreme Court ruling ‘takes teeth out’ of Miranda, advocates say

In a ruling issued Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court whittled away at Miranda protections, experts say, and though the ruling won't have immediate bearing on criminal cases, advocates fear it is a step toward eliminating Miranda rights.

“The bulk of the decision is saying Miranda is not a right,” said Hartford city councilman and public defender Josh Michtom. “The writing is on the wall that they want to get rid of Miranda.”

When a police officer makes an arrest and informs the accused that they have “the right to remain silent,” the right to an attorney and that anything they say “can and will be used against you in a court of law,” they are following a precedent the U.S. Supreme Court set after the 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona.

The Miranda ruling “did something that never had been done before,” said Todd Fernow, a professor emeritus of law at UConn specializing in criminal law and procedure. “The thing it did was completely change the presumptive legality of how the police do business when they interrogate a subject.”

In the recent case of Vega v. Tekoh, Terence Tekoh was not Mirandized by Los Angeles Sheriff 's Deputy Carlos Vega before being interrogated on accusations of sexual assault.

In a 6-3 ruling Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court said Tekoh did not have the right to sue Vega.

“Allowing the victim of a Miranda violation to sue a police officer for damages,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “would have little additional deterrent value, and permitting such claims would cause many problems.”

Attorney Alex Taubes said the case is “more about accountability and the ability to recover compensation and lawsuits than it is about Miranda itself.”

While the ruling has no immediate bearing on criminal cases, removing the right to sue when the Miranda rule is violated “takes the teeth out of Miranda,” Taubes said.

“If you can't go to court and say ‘My rights were violated and the person who did it would have to pay, then it's not a right, it's just something they put on paper,” he said.

That argument echoes what Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent: “Today, the court strips individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda.”

Fernow disagreed that the Tekoh ruling is an intentional weakening of Miranda rights, which the court defined not as a right itself but as a rule intended to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination: “I just don't see it as the precursor for gutting Miranda.”

“They didn't even talk about overruling Miranda,” he said. “What they are now saying is, we're going to disaggregate the violation from the remedy. It's really a much more narrow decision than you think it is. I don't think they're going to overrule Miranda.”

Though he added, “They might — this court could do anything.”