Miranda Rights

“You have the right to remain silent, anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the State. Do you understand these rights as I have read to you?”

Officers should practice reading suspects their rights whenever they are detained or arrested, as incriminating statements in response to questions without suspects being made aware of their rights are inadmissable. However, the case laws below show exceptions to this in some circumstances.

Vega v. Tekoh (2023):

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a suspect cannot sue police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely for not receiving Miranda warnings during interrogation. The Court held that Miranda rights are procedural safeguards for ensuring voluntary statements but do not, by themselves, create grounds for a civil rights lawsuit.

White v. Illinois (1992):

This case ruled that spontaneous or excited utterances are admissible as evidence without requiring the speaker to testify in court. The Court held that such statements are inherently reliable because they are made in response to startling events, without the chance for reflection or fabrication.