The Supreme Court on Wednesday had begun hearing arguments in a case in which a police deputy failed to provide a suspect his Miranda warnings.
The case arose from a 2014 confrontation between Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy Carlos Vega and hospital nursing assistant Terence Tekoh concerning an alleged sexual assault of an unidentified woman at a Los Angeles hospital.
It began when Vega began to question Tekoh after nurses told the deputy that he was seen taking the heavily sedated patient to her room.
Tekoh claims that he was interrogated by Vega for over an hour in a private room and that the deputy refused his request to speak with an attorney.
The nursing assistant also said that Vega falsely told him the sexual assault was captured on video and blocked him from leaving the room until he signed a confession.
He was later acquitted of assaulting the woman and then went on to file a lawsuit over Vega’s having allegedly forced him to sign a confession and failing to read him his rights.
The court’s conservative lawmakers agreed during Wednesday’s hearing that the 1966 Miranda decision bars forced confessions from being used in court but they were skeptical of “extending” it to allow damage suits against police officers who don’t read a suspect of their rights.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett both noted that while the court had repeatedly upheld Miranda, it was always difficult to recognize it as a “constitutional right,” arguing that they are only guidelines that protect a person’s constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The case will determine whether police officers can face civil liability when they forget to read a suspect their Miranda rights, which the court recognized in its Miranda v. Arizona decision in 1966 and later reaffirmed after 34 years.
Paul Hoffman, Tekoh’s lawyer, said that his client has no other legal option if he can’t sue Vega.
“I’m standing here on behalf of Mr. Tekoh, who was acquitted and has absolutely no other remedy than a Section 1983 violation. His life was destroyed by these actions,” Hoffman said.
A decision in Vega v. Tekoh, 21-499, is expected by June.
