SCOTUS Year in Review : Miranda warnings , malicious prosecutions and civil rights claims
There were several noteworthy cases from the past term pertaining to law enforcement officer liability for alleged constitutional violations
By Terrence P . Dwyer , Esq ., Police Liability and Litigation Reprinted with permission from
Police1 . com
The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | February 2023
The U . S . Supreme Court ’ s decisions in Dobbs v . Jackson Women ’ s Health Organization – overturning abortion rights originally granted in Roe v . Wade – and New York Rifle & Pistol Association v . Bruen – providing an individual right to carry a firearm in public – overshadowed the rest of the October 2021 term . While neither case has a direct association with policing , there are tangential issues that could raise policing concerns .
Whether police officers should be dragged into enforcement efforts in those states criminalizing abortion is a topic left for another day as state abortion statutes develop in the wake of Dobbs . Similarly , the impact of the Second Amendment case on lawful and unlawful gun possession requires time to see how this evolves . Meanwhile , there were several noteworthy cases from the past term pertaining to law enforcement officer liability for alleged constitutional violations .
Last year ’ s U . S . Supreme Court summary of the 2020 term included two decisions published at the start of the October 2021 term . Those cases , Rivas-Villegas v . Cortesluna and City of Tahlequah v . Bond , involved use of force reviews by the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal wherein police officers were found to have violated “ clearly established law .” The Supreme Court reversed in both cases . The Ninth Circuit was instructed to look at existing precedent within the specific context of the case and not as a “ broad general proposition ,” while the Tenth Circuit was similarly directed not to define “ clearly established law ” too generally .
The remainder of the pertinent law enforcement cases from the October 2021 term also focused on liability-related issues .
NO CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE MIRANDA WARNINGS In Vega v . Tekoh , a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff was sued for not providing Miranda warnings to a suspect in custody .
The suspect , a certified nursing assistant , was accused of sexual assault by a female patient . During an interrogation the suspect provided a written statement wherein he apologized for inappropriately touching the patient ’ s genitals . His un-Mirandized statement was admitted into evidence at trial .
There were two state court trials since the first resulted in a mistrial . In that initial proceeding , the judge ruled that the nursing assistant was not in custody and allowed the statement in as evidence . At the second trial , the defendant Tekoh again sought to have his statement suppressed but it was admitted . Tekoh was acquitted by the jury and he subsequently filed a civil rights complaint under 42 USC § 1983 against the deputy sheriff , Vega .
In the federal civil rights trial , the jury awarded a verdict in favor of Vega , but the district court judge vacated the verdict because he had given an improper jury instruction . At the second trial , Tekoh asked for the jury to be instructed that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated if the jury determined that Vega took a statement from him in violation of Miranda and the statement was erroneously used against him at trial .
The District Court judge ruled that Miranda created a prophylactic rule and did not provide separate liability for a violation . The requested jury instruction was thus denied , and a second jury found in favor of Vega . Tekoh appealed to a panel of the Ninth Circuit who reversed based on a determination that the use of an un-Mirandized statement against a suspect at trial was a Fifth Amendment violation and could subject a police officer to § 1983 liability .
Justice Alito wrote the 6-3 majority opinion for the Supreme Court and reversed the Ninth Circuit . Echoing the ruling of the Second District Court to try the case , the majority held that Miranda was a prophylactic rule meant to safeguard individual rights against self-incrimination but not to create a separate basis of government liability . The Court said that a Miranda violation was not tantamount to a Fifth Amendment violation . Furthermore , the Court said the expansion of the Miranda doctrine to create a right to sue would be of little benefit and a drain on the judicial system .
The purpose of Miranda warnings is to provide a suspect with knowledge of their rights and guard against coerced statements . Failure to provide Miranda warnings during custodial questioning results in suppression of any statement at trial . It is a per se rule of exclusion . The Vega case reinforces the Court ’ s prior position in Chavez v . Martinez , 538 U . S . 760 ( 2003 ), that failure to administer Miranda warnings does not deprive a suspect of Fifth Amendment rights . However , the Chavez majority did state that substantive due process rights could be violated under egregious circumstances .
6
Continued on next page