Thursday , August 18 2022
Home / The Angry Bear / Miranda Rights Up Next?

Miranda Rights Up Next?

Summary:
Expected reversal of Miranda requires states to step up on policing  to replace it. A lesser-known case appears to likely to upend another constitutional precedent—Miranda rights. This case, Vega v. Tekoh, asks whether a person’s federal constitutional rights are violated if a police officer fails to inform them of their rights to remain silent, to be represented by an attorney, and to be protected against self-incrimination whenever the person is subjected to a custodial interrogation by the police. These warnings, known as Miranda warnings after the 1966 Supreme Court case that first prescribed them, have become critical protections against coercive police interrogations and are routinely recited by officers whenever they make arrests or

Topics:
run75441 considers the following as important: , , ,

This could be interesting, too:

run75441 writes Inflation Reduction Act Passes, search warrant unsealed

run75441 writes GAO: Government Losses on Federal Student Loan Programs?

run75441 writes The Semiconductor Bill and Moderna Billionaires

run75441 writes Signing Social Security this Day in 1935 into Law

Expected reversal of Miranda requires states to step up on policing  to replace it.

A lesser-known case appears to likely to upend another constitutional precedent—Miranda rights.

This case, Vega v. Tekoh, asks whether a person’s federal constitutional rights are violated if a police officer fails to inform them of their rights to remain silent, to be represented by an attorney, and to be protected against self-incrimination whenever the person is subjected to a custodial interrogation by the police. These warnings, known as Miranda warnings after the 1966 Supreme Court case that first prescribed them, have become critical protections against coercive police interrogations and are routinely recited by officers whenever they make arrests or question suspects in custody.”

This may come after SCOTUS decided on Wednesday Border Patrol agents who violate the Constitution have total immunity from lawsuits holding them accountable.

And then there is Egbert v, Boule.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion in Egbert v. Boule has implications stretching far beyond the border. Egbert guts Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), establishing federal law enforcement officers violating the Constitution may be individually sued. Potentially, they could be required to compensate their victims for their illegal actions.

Slate’s Jurisprudence has Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting with Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joining. Castigating the majority for shredding precedent in its quest to immunize federal officers from civil suits. The justice complaining “a restless and newly constituted court” rewrites law ensuring victims of federal police brutality have no redress. 

You do have the right to complain to the federal agency employing the agent. “Don’t hold your breath while waiting on support.”

Sotomayer also drew attention to the reason for this shift. Stating the replacement of Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett moving the court far to the right.

Thomas cites Congress is always better equipped (then the courts) for this task because it can determine a “range of policy considerations.”

In 1971’s Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, involved a claim of excessive force against federal narcotics agents. While “the Fourth Amendment does not in so many words provide for its enforcement by an award of money damages,” a majority held, it is “well settled” “federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done.” In other words, a right without a remedy is no right at all, so the courts have an obligation to craft one when Congress fails to do so.

Slate: Courts have insisted the precedent applies only when the facts of a case are nearly identical to Bivens. So, in theory, when federal agents use excessive force, they can still be sued. But if that force takes place in some “new context” with “special factors”— say, some connection to national security—the suit will fail

Thomas denies the court has any obligation and replaces the Bivens standard. Judges hearing Bivens  claims should ask themselves

“whether there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy.”

Even though Egbert v. Boule is similar to Bivens, Thomas denies any responsibility of the court in deciding. But then, there is no rule in SCOTUS procedure stating they can not decide. Thomas is attempting to legislate from the bench. Furthermore, he place many people in danger with a rogue department,

The link reviewing the case is there if you care to read it.

About run75441

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *