Another right damaged

Lost in the furor over Roe v. Wade was another appalling Supreme Court ruling in Vega v. Tekoh. It undermined the landmark 56-year-old precedent that established what have come to be known as Miranda rights.

The court ruled suspects who are not informed of their constitutional right to remain silent under police questioning cannot sue law enforcement or other government officials for damages.

The decision guts the 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. If police are not compelled to read Miranda warnings by the threat of lawsuits, then there is no impetus for them to do so.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that while Miranda rights have “roots” in the Constitution, “a violation of Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution.” The justice wrote that statements obtained without a Miranda warning should be suppressed at trial, but he argued that “Allowing the victim of a Miranda violation to sue a police officer for damages … would have little additional deterrent value, and permitting such claims would cause many problems.”

Given that the court previously found Miranda warnings “necessary to safeguard the personal protections of the Fifth Amendment,” Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent asked, why shouldn’t the reading of rights be enforceable?

Most people’s experience of Miranda rights comes from watching police procedurals on television, which often get the basic facts of the law right: Those taken into police custody must be advised of their Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination, such as during interrogation.

It’s not clear what will compel police to inform suspects of their rights during interrogation if they can’t be held accountable. Rights do not enforce themselves.