The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that law enforcement cannot be sued for violating Americans' civil rights if they fail to tell people of their Miranda rights.
There are security barricades outside the Supreme Court.
Miranda rights, which the Supreme Court first established in a separate 1996 case, are read to criminal suspects when they're arrested, and that "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"
The court ruled 6-3 Thursday against a man who was questioned by law enforcement after being accused of sexual assault and was not read his Miranda rights, which resulted in him apologizing for the crime that was used against him at trial.
The justices held that the police officer who did not read him his Miranda rights could not be sued.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court's majority, said that violating the court's previous ruling that established Miranda rights is not the same as violating the Fifth Amendment.
The ruling doesn't mean that law enforcement won't have to read suspects their Miranda rights, but it does mean that it's harder to enforce the law if they don't.
Alito noted that statements obtained by suspects who haven't been read their Miranda rights can still be suppressed during trial, which the judge still denied in Tekoh's case when it went to trial.
After being accused of sexually molesting a female patient at the medical center where he worked, he was eventually found not guilty in court. He filed a lawsuit after he was acquitted of violating his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment was violated when the appeals court found that the police officer had not been coerced into giving a statement. The Supreme Court upheld Miranda rights in 2000. Being read Miranda rights is a rule that Congress can't overrule.
There is an argument about the future of Miranda rights.
The Supreme Court doesn't allow it to enforce Miranda rights.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
