You Have the Right to Remain Silent, But Not to Sue

Many Americans, young and old alike, are able to recite at least one of their rights afforded by Miranda v. Arizona, a landmark case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966. 

In its holding, the Court essentially ruled that police must recite some form of your basic rights, upon making an arrest and ensure that you understand them. Those rights, collectively referred to as a “Miranda warning”, allow you to remain silent, request that an attorney be appointed to you, and decide whether you would like to answer questions or continue engaging in any form of conversation with law enforcement. 

These rights are intended to protect and effectively enforce your right against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. When these rights are not stated or are unable to be understood due to incapacitation such as intoxication, mental condition or age, certain legal consequences exist.

When physical or verbal evidence is obtained in violation of the Constitution, the Court may deem it as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and render it unable to be used against you. For example, if you were arrested, not read your Miranda rights, and during interrogation you admitted to possessing drugs which were later found in a location the police otherwise would not have looked, but for your admission, your defense attorney may be able to argue that it should be thrown out because the police did not follow Miranda v. Arizona. 

By the same token, if you were arrested, your rights were not stated and the evidence was used against you in trial and you were found not guilty, you previously may have been able to file a civil rights lawsuit against the offending officer. 

However, the Supreme Court recently ruled in Vega v. Tekoh, that this remedy is no longer available even in the case of a clear violation. In Vega, respondent was a healthcare worker who had been detained, interrogated and threatened with force or deportation, and ultimately coerced into writing a false apology letter for a crime he did not commit. 

While the Court’s ruling does not change the fact that Miranda warnings should still be given, it limits one’s ability to seek redress or remedy for the officer’s failure to adhere to Miranda v. Arizona. The reasoning: Miranda rights are not constitutional rights, but rather a “rule” that is designed to protect constitutional rights from being violated. 

The Court’s reasoning is somewhat circular and calls into question whether Miranda warnings truly exist to protect one from abuse of civil rights or simply to have the appearance of protection. The failure to make this distinction, may result in a lack of accountability among law enforcement where an individual has no remedy other than suppression, which is not guaranteed, and may be convicted or otherwise harmed by a violation. 

Despite this latest ruling, I encourage you to continue enforcing your rights if you end up in a position of search, arrest, and/or interrogation, and consult with an attorney for next steps

Call to Action

Have you ever dreamed of having your thoughts put in print and disseminated to interested readers? If so, we encourage you to share your knowledge with us and members of the public by submitting an article! Feel free to send your thoughts to bshaw@archcitydefenders.org.