Recently, the Supreme Court held that a defendant who has suffered a violation of Miranda is NOT entitled to sue under 14 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a private individual is allowed to file a lawsuit against any person who is acting as an agent of the state, and deprives that individual of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. The Supreme Court’s opinion reasons that the lack of Miranda warnings does not equate to a violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, because Miranda warnings are a prophylactic (preventative) rule to prevent violations.

The 5th Amendment states that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Said differently, the U.S. Constitution protects you when you don’t want to testify in your criminal trial, and also protects you from answering questions that may incriminate you. If somehow you were compelled to answer questions, the 5th Amendment prevents the government from using those statements against you in a criminal trial. In the Miranda decision, the Supreme Court decided that protections were necessary to prevent the violation of the 5th Amendment right when suspects are in custody and interrogated by the police. Those are the “Miranda rights” that can be heard on every CSI and Law & Order episode, which include the right to remain silent, that anything you say will be used against you, you have the right to an attorney and the right to have your attorney present when being questioned, and if you can’t afford one then one will be appointed to you. When the court finds those rights violated, the statements cannot be used in the Prosecutor’s case in chief at a criminal trial against you. However, the statements can be used for impeachment purposes. For example, if you take the stand and say the opposite of what you said during an interrogation, the state can ask you about your conflicting non-Mirandized statement.

In Miranda, the Court said that the 5th Amendment is crucial to the criminal justice system. Therefore, in order to admit statements against Defendants when they are in custody and subject to interrogation, they must be informed of their 5th Amendment rights via Miranda warnings. If the suspects are not informed of these rights and subjected to custodial interrogation, their statements will be suppressed in the case-in-chief. This suppression is based on the 5th Amendment, not based on some other law or legal principle. Thus, it is precisely the type of violation that § 1983 is designed to address. Let’s also not forget that Miranda rights are easy to administer and take 30 seconds. Today, there is absolutely no reason why an Officer would not give the warnings, other than purposefully trying to extort the power imbalance between an Officer and a suspect to obtain a confession. The Majority’s reasoning seems to be guided more towards a pro-law enforcement sentiment rather than by any sound legal principle. To summarize, if you are wrongly convicted of a crime based on a Miranda violation, you have no judicial remedy via § 1983, i.e., you cannot sue the officer civilly for violating your Miranda rights under §1983. All that being said, for now your rights in your criminal trial have not changed and you are still entitled to suppression of your non-Mirandized statements in your criminal case. However, the Vega v. Tekoh ruling forecasts what is possibly coming.

If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges, you can reach the team at Castillo Law 24/7 for emergencies at 602-795-6701 or 480-206-5204.