Police still have to read Miranda rights before questioning

In a Supreme Court case involving the “right to remain silent,” people wondered if Miranda’s rights still applied. do they. Here’s what the verdict actually did.

On June 23, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Vega v. Tekoh, a case involving an officer who was sued for failing to read Miranda’s warnings to a person he arrested.

Before an officer questions anyone who is in custody, they must inform the person of their rights with a notification known as the Miranda Alert. This warning tells people they have the “right to remain silent” and other safeguards against self-incrimination.

Following the Supreme Court decision, several VERIFY viewers asked if the decision meant officers would no longer have to read Miranda’s rights during an arrest.

THE QUESTION

Are law enforcement officers still required to read you your Miranda rights?

THE SOURCES

THE ANSWER

This is true.

Yes, law enforcement will still need to read you your Miranda rights. The Supreme Court’s ruling limits citizens’ ability to seek compensation if these rights are not read to them before questioning.

WHAT WE FOUND

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to a lawyer. If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. Do you understand them Rights I just read to you? Would you like to speak to me about those rights?”

This statement is known as the Miranda Warning. It is a list of rights that law enforcement agencies must explain to someone who is in custody and is being interrogated.

It’s a common misconception that police need to read your Miranda rights before or during your arrest. While many police officers do, according to the Skinner Law Firm, their only legal obligation is to inform an individual of their Miranda rights before questioning them.

Failure to read a suspect’s Miranda rights prior to law enforcement questioning could result in testimony or evidence collected being thrown out of court.

This is called the exclusion rule. This legal rule prevents evidence collected during the violation of a person’s constitutional rights from being used in court.

If they are read of their Miranda rights and nevertheless make statements to the police, the evidence will be admitted in court and can be used by the defense or the prosecution.

Miranda rights were created in 1966 as a result of Miranda v. Arizona, a Supreme Court case that established that a person cannot be questioned by police without first remaining silent about their right and notifying their right to an attorney , rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution.

In Vega v. Tekoh, the judges ruled 6-3 in favor of Carlos Vega, a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy who was sued after he failed to pay a hospital worker accused of sexually assaulting a patient. to read a warning from Miranda.

The Vega v. 2022 Tekoh ruling does not change whether a law enforcement officer is required to read someone their Miranda rights. In fact, the ruling limits a citizen’s ability to seek damages if they are not read out about their Miranda rights prior to questioning and the information obtained is later used in court. This is because the ruling states that “violating Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution” and therefore provides no grounds for filing a lawsuit.

This means that a person can no longer sue law enforcement for violating their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by not issuing the Miranda Warning and using self-incriminating evidence in court.

But the judgment does not change what may or may not be used against someone in a criminal court.

David Jaros, a professor at the University of Baltimore’s Center for Criminal Justice Reform, told VERIFY that if a law enforcement officer fails to read someone their Miranda rights and the arrested person says something self-incriminating, it is still not allowed to be used in court.

Howard Wasserman, a law professor at Florida International University, told VERIFY that it was difficult to say how significant the Vega v. Tekoh regarding civil damages, as several things must happen for Miranda to be injured.

“For the violation to be complete, the officer does not have to warn you, then the prosecutor must take the affidavit and offer it as evidence. And then you need the judge to admit the testimony into evidence. And all three things must happen for a Miranda breach to occur,” Wasserman said.

Wasserman said that it’s unusual for all three things to happen, making violations of Miranda a relatively rare occurrence.

Jaros reiterates that a person still has the constitutional right to protect themselves from self-incrimination. Vega v. Tekoh hasn’t changed that.

“You still have the right to remain silent. Nothing changed about that. And the police are still obliged to read you your rights. And if they don’t, the right remedy is that that statement shouldn’t be available to be used against you,” Jaros told VERIFY.

The VERIFY team works to separate fact from fiction so you can understand what is true and what is false. Please consider subscribing to our daily newsletter, text notifications and YouTube channel. You can also follow us on Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. Learn more “

follow us

Want something VERIFIED?

Text: 202-410-8808

https://www.king5.com/article/news/verify/scotus-verify/law-enforcement-required-miranda-rights/536-f3cd575f-fdd8-4dc7-a19b-bad6c695c454 Police still have to read Miranda rights before questioning

Alley Einstein

USTimesPost.com is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@ustimespost.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button