WASHINGTON, Jun 24 – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday defended police from the risk of damages for failing to advise criminal suspects of their rights before receiving subsequent court statements against them, according to a Los Angeles County deputy.
Judges in favor of vice president Carlos Vega, who had filed an appeal against a lower court decision reversing the case of hospital worker Terence Tekoh, accused the official of violating his rights under the protection of the U.S. Fifth Amendment.
Tekoh has been charged with sexually assaulting a hospital patient after Vega obtained a confession from him without informing the suspect of his rights in so-called Miranda warnings. Tekoh was acquitted of the charge.
Six of the Conservatives in the court were the majority in a decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, with three members of the opposition arguing.
The rights of the case are explained in the Supreme Court by Miranda v. 1966 landmark decision. Arizona states that, under the Fifth Amendment, the police must, among other things, inform criminal suspects of their right to peace and have an attorney present. At the same time, they are being investigated before making any statements. mother can be used in a criminal case.
President Joe Biden’s management backs Vega in an appeal.
The contention was that court use of statements collected from suspects who were not given Miranda’s warning could result in a civil case against an investigator under corporate law that allows people to sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights.
Vega 2014 investigated a Los Angeles hospital patient’s claim that Tekoh, who worked at the center, had inadvertently touched her while she was paralyzed in a hospital bed. Vega said Tekoh voluntarily agreed to plead guilty even though he was not arrested or detained.
Tekoh disputes the Vega version of the events and argues that he was interrogated by Vega, who forced a false confession.
Tekoh was arrested and charged with sexual harassment in a state court. His guilty statement was accepted as evidence during the trial, but the judge acquitted him. Tekoh then sued Vega in federal court, accusing the officer of violating his rights in Amendment Five by issuing a guilty statement without Miranda’s warnings, which led to his being used in criminal prosecution.
The judge reached a decision in favor of Vega, but the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals of San Francisco 2021 ordered a new trial for the official debt.
The 9th Circuit found that using a statement taken without Miranda’s warning against the defendant in a criminal case violates the Fifth Amendment, resulting in a claim for financial damages against the officer who received the statement.
Appealing to the Supreme Court, Vega’s attorneys said in an official file that the decision of the 9th Chamber threatened to “bind police departments across the country with extraordinary responsibilities in connection with lawful and proper investigative work.” Vega’s lawyers added that “almost any police contact with a criminal suspect” could lead to a police case.