Ninth Circuit Divides Over Damages Action for <i>Miranda</i> Violation

uTN Social - Free Speech Social Media

If you’re not much deeper than I am into the case law on the Miranda warnings, you might want to skip this post. For the remaining readers, please pardon my effort to keep things succinct.

In an order today, the Ninth Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of seven judges, denied rehearing en banc of the panel decision in Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles. In that panel decision, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, joined by Judge Mary Murguia and Judge Eric Miller, ruled that when prosecutors have used an un-Mirandized statement to prove a criminal charge against a defendant, that defendant may pursue a damages action under section 1983 against the officer who took the statement.

Advertisement

The two opinions—one concurring, one dissenting—in today’s en banc order clash in particular over Chief Justice Rehnquist’s baffling opinion in Dickerson v. United States (2000). In Dickerson, Rehnquist declined to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and held that Congress may not supersede it legislatively, even as he (artfully?) avoided declaring that the use at trial of a voluntary but un-Mirandized statement violates the Constitution. Justice Scalia wrote a withering dissent.

NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.

Get Jim Geraghty’s tour of the political news of the day.

Get Kevin D. Williamson’s newsletter delivered to your inbox each Tuesday.

A weekly digest on business and economics from an NR sensibility.

We’ll deliver The Capital Note to your inbox each weekday. No charge.

In today’s dissent (joined by six colleagues), Judge Patrick Bumatay argues that “Supreme Court precedent … has uniformly recognized Miranda rules as prophylactic safeguards of the Fifth Amendment right [against self-incrimination]—not a constitutional right in and of itself” and that Dickerson “did not change this understanding.” Therefore, the predicate needed for a section 1983 action—a violation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”—is missing.

Advertisement

In his opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Miller (joined by Judges Wardlaw and Murguia) says that Dickerson “would have come out the other way” if a violation of Miranda’s rules is not also a violation of the Constitution. He therefore reads Dickerson as necessarily meaning what Rehnquist avoided stating. Noting that the language of the federal habeas statute is “strikingly similar to that of section 1983,” Miller also argues that the fact that a Miranda claim can be pursued under the habeas statute supports the panel’s ruling that it can be pursued under section 1983.

Bumatay and Miller also disagree over whether the panel ruling creates or exacerbates a conflict among the circuits.

Recommended


The Fall of Saint Anthony Fauci

On the unforced errors of America’s most political doctor.


Calm Down, Everyone: The ‘UFOs’ Aren’t Aliens

The videos disclosed so far all have obvious potential terrestrial explanations.


COVID-19 Rewired Our Brains

It’s time for a mass deprogramming.


The Mask Is an Outward Sign of Inward Things

This isn’t a medical question anymore; it’s a question of cultural allegiance.


Rebekah Jones, the COVID Whistleblower Who Wasn’t

The former dashboard manager alleges a vast data conspiracy in Florida; not a word of it is true.


The Democrats Have a Kamala Harris Problem

It seems indisputable that the Democratic Party has a real interest in Harris being more popular than she is.

The Latest


Fauci Claims It’s ‘in China’s Interest’ to Expose COVID Origins, Urges Americans to Avoid ‘Pointing Fingers’

‘I think the accusatory part about it is only going to get them to pull back even more,’ Fauci said of China.


Maggie Haberman Is Right

Donald Trump really does believe that he, along with two former GOP senators, will be ‘reinstated’ to office this summer.


The Southern Baptist Controversy Is Not about Trump

What Russell Moore’s departure from Southern Baptist leadership means.


The Lovable Police State?

Chairman Xi wants the world’s love and respect, but he’ll be satisfied just to get his way.


Tom Cotton Presses Lockheed Martin on Diversity Training, Says It Violated Civil Rights Law

Cotton argues the company may have violated the Civil Rights Act by seeking to ‘limit, segregate, or classify their employees’ based on race.


Rural Oregonians Launch Bid to Secede and Join Idaho: ‘Let Us Go’

Portland liberals ‘don’t understand the way that people out here live,’ one organizer told NR.

Top Stories

Get our conservative analysis delivered right to you. No charge.

Read More Feedzy

The Foxhole App - Trusted News Podcasts

Leave a Reply

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