Posted on 06/23/2022 11:16:09 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Vega V Tekoh, a case involving the administration of Miranda rights, with the court ruling that a suspect’s words or statements can be used in court regardless of their Miranda rights.
For background, these are the facts of the case in question:
Terence Tekoh worked as a patient transporter in a hospital in Los Angeles. After a patient accused him of sexual assault, hospital staff reported the allegation to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Deputy Carlos Vega went to the hospital to ask Tekoh questions and take Tekoh’s statement. Although the parties described vastly different accounts of the nature of the interaction between Tekoh and Vega, it is undisputed that Vega did not advise Tekoh of his Miranda rights before questioning him or taking his statement.
Tekoh was arrested and charged in California state court, but a jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Following the acquittal on the criminal charge, Tekoh sued Vega, alleging that Vega violated Tekoh’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by taking his statement without first advising him of his Miranda rights.
Justice Samuel Alito issued his ruling, a count of 6-3, deciding that using such statements outside of Miranda rights is not a violation of a defendant’s rights and does not give them the right to sue the court for such use.
....... Snip.......
The ruling brings into question the future of Miranda rights. Essentially Thursday’s ruling implies that any conversation, coerced or voluntary, taken in the absence of Miranda, can be used against a defendant in a court of law.
Thursday’s ruling is a threat to the Fitfh Amendment, which states that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
The entire Miranda Warning thing is bogus anyway. In no way is a good warning and it is not even something cops should be doing.
Fir Miranda to attach.. two thing must be met…custody and questioning… he wasn’t in custody
A strange ruling, IMHO...
Mirandizing applies at the point at which the person becomes targeted as an actual criminal suspect. In this case the person being asked questions was already the subject of a rape compliant, o it’s hard to argue they weren’t a suspect. Police can ask non-suspects informational questions all day long without Mirandizing. If the police asked something like, “Heard any good rape claims about this hospital lately?”, and the person confesses, that’s not a Miranda problem.
The court’s ruling the status quo in place. The only remedy for Miranda violations remains excluding statements (and evidence that derived from them) from court when made prior to a criminal suspect being “Mirandized”. The suspects can’t sue the investigator for not Mirandizing them. The ruling does zip to the 5th amendment.
Of course.
Exactly.🤔
You are correct. First though, officers are not required to Mirandize someone just because they make an arrest. But, once the person is in custody, then the Miranda rights must be read before the suspect is questioned.
I was referring to the deviant opinion that somehow he deserved Miranda protection after confessing to raping an incapacitated patient.
I have always maintained that a great part of the value of a Miranda Warning is in reminding law enforcement of the limits of their authority. (A Military Policeman once threatened to bust my friend's head. I'm pretty sure the MP exceeded his authority to even suggest such a thing.)
I would add the following to the end of the Warning; "I, as a law enforcement officer, am not allowed to beat a confession out of you nor am I allowed to question you for more than three hours without providing you water, food, and an hour's rest. I am not allowed to question you beyond three hours without your written consent."
Most Freepers are aware of the videos describing why you should not talk to the police. For example, even if you tell the absolute truth, a credible witness may mistakenly contradict you on an unimportant detail thus damaging your credibility in a way that silence could never do.
I have been an MP. I have made such a threat. :)
I think we may be onto something here.
Where were you in 1970?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.