Does a §1983 claim for damages lie against a law enforcement officer who obtains a statement during custodial interrogation in violation of the suspect’s Miranda rights? Many decisions hold that police violations of Miranda are not actionable under §1983. See, e.g., Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128, 138 (2d Cir. 2003) (absent coercion, Miranda violations are not constitutional violations, and “appropriate remedy” remedy is exclusion of evidence). Jocks, 316 F.3d at 138. In Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles, 985 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2021), however, the Ninth Circuit recently held that where a suspect’s statements obtained by a police officer in violation of Miranda were introduced at a state criminal trial in the state’s case-in-chief, the suspect may assert a §1983 claim for damages against the officer who obtained the statement.

To appreciate the significance of the decision in Tekoh, it is necessary first to consider a number of basic constitutional principles governing police interrogations. An “involuntary” confession obtained from a suspect by police coercion is inadmissible in a criminal trial under both the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. Whether a suspect’s statement is involuntary because her “will was overborne” is determined under the “totality of the circumstances” that considers ‘“both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.’” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 (200) (citation omitted). Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was designed to give suspects greater protection from custodial police interrogations and provide greater predictability and certainty than the “totality of circumstances” approach. Miranda did not overturn the totality of circumstances approach but added to the protections of individuals subject to custodial interrogation.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]