- Details
- By Darren Thompson
On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Carlos Vega v. Terence B. Tekoh that a plaintiff may not sue a police officer for obtaining an improper admission of an “un-Mirandized” statement used in a criminal prosecution. The ruling does not impact the exclusion of evidence obtained without the Miranda warning for a criminal trial.
“Because a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and because we see no justification for expanding Miranda to confer a right to sue under Section 1983, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” wrote Justice Alito, who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court on Thursday, June 23.
The case involves Terence Tekoh, a hospital worker in Los Angeles who was accused of sexually assaulting a patient at a hospital in 2014, and Carlos Vega, a Los Angeles County sheriff deputy who questioned Tekoh. Tekoh’s attorneys argued Vega used aggressive techniques to get Tekoh to confess. Vega’s attorneys said that the confession was consensual and voluntary and he wasn’t in custody at the time of the confession.
Tekoh was tried and acquitted, even with a confession at his trial. He later sued Vega under Section 1983, a federal law that allows suits for damages against government misconduct when a person’s constitutional rights were violated.
The ruling affects Miranda because it prohibits those wrongfully prosecuted from obtaining damages, even if their rights were violated. It leaves victims without recourse for government misconduct.
Miranda rights don’t apply on some Tribal lands, however, because Tribal courts do not require Miranda. Some Tribes require Miranda, through their own rules and regulations, but it’s unclear how many do.
“The protections provided to Indians in Tribal Courts are outlined in the Indian Civil Rights Act and each Tribal Nation’s constitution,” said Danielle Finn, Associate Judge for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe to Native News Online. “Therefore, each Tribe has different rights provided and some may and some may not be ‘mirandizing’.”
There is no known number of Tribes who give or do not give Miranda rights, but many do because it is consistent with their training. The Indian Civil Rights Act requires Tribes to provide an attorney for a defendant facing charges that could bring a year or more in jail. Tribal courts are less-adversarial than state or federal courts.
The decision to limit Miranda rights does apply off Tribal lands, though, and government misconduct is no longer under the same scrutiny.
More Stories Like This
Native News Weekly (August 25, 2024): D.C. BriefsUS Presidents in Their Own Words Concerning American Indians
Native News Weekly (August 4, 2024): D.C. Briefs
Alaska Native Heritage Center Receives $3.5 Million Mellon Foundation Grant for Healing Garden & Monuments Project
Naabik’íyáti’ Committee Approves Transfer of Navajo Nation Youth Advisory Council from Executive to Legislative Branch
Can we take a minute to talk about tribal sovereignty?
Our mission draws from the warrior spirit that has sustained Indigenous peoples for generations — the same spirit that drives us to stand guard over tribal rights through relentless investigation and fearless reporting.
Sovereignty isn't just a concept – it's the foundation of Native nations' right to govern, protect our lands, and preserve our cultures. Every story we publish strengthens tribal sovereignty.
Unlike mainstream media, we center Indigenous voices and report directly from Native communities. When we cover land rights, water protection, or tribal governance, we're not just sharing news – we're documenting our living history and defending our future.
Our journalism is powered by readers, not shareholders. If you believe in the importance of Native-led media in protecting tribal sovereignty, consider supporting our work today.