On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Vega v. Tekoh. The case will determine whether a person can seek civil relief when an officer fails to provide them with their Miranda rights, legal protections for potential criminal defendants against self-incrimination. Terence Tekoh was employed as a nursing assistant at a Los Angeles medical center when he was accused of sexually assaulting a heavily sedated patient. The allegations were reported and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Deputy Carlos Vega went to the hospital where he questioned Tekoh. After about an hour of questioning, Vega obtained a handwritten confession to the assault from Tekoh. Tekoh claims that the confession was obtained without Vega providing him with his Miranda rights. At trial, Tekoh’s motion to remove the confession from the evidence was denied. When that trial ended in a mistrial, there was a second trial in which the government tried to resubmit Tekoh’s confession. The jury acquitted Tekoh in the second trial. After his acquittal, Tekoh sued Vega, Vega’s supervisor, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Los Angeles County for damages. During that case, the jury found in favor of Vega and the other defendants. Tekoh appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which overturned the jury’s verdict and reversed the district court’s decision in favor of Tekoh. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Tekoh’s attorney, Paul Hoffman, claimed that Tekoh’s confession was obtained as a result of being placed in a locked room for an hour, reprimanded, and threatened with deportation while Vega had his hand on a weapon. Tekoh seeks to hold Vega civilly liable for failing to provide Tekoh with his Miranda rights. However, Vega’s attorney, Román Martínez, acknowledged that Miranda’s rights are constitutionally protected, but not a Fifth Amendment right. Martinez reasoned that Dickerson v. The United States gave Miranda v. Arizona, but did not create a Fifth Amendment right. During their lines of questioning, the Supreme Court judges contested the claims of both parties. Judge Kagan cautioned that the court must be careful to limit Dickerson’s decision in the way Martinez interpreted it. Kagan warned that Martinez’s interpretation of Dickerson may undermine it and disrupt people’s understanding of the criminal justice system, as well as the legitimacy of the judicial system. Justice Barrett, on the other hand, said that when Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion in Dickerson, he did not say that Miranda warnings were a constitutional right. Barrett said, “It seemed very carefully worded to say ‘constitutional rule’ or ‘constitutionally required’.” Chief Justice Roberts said Rehnquist chose his words carefully and only addressed the constitutional foundations and constitutional basis of Miranda. At the end of oral arguments, Hoffmann said: “[Tekoh’s] life was destroyed by these actions. He is acquitted. When the full story comes out, he claims that the officer set him up for this and basically set the prosecutor and the court up as well. What remedy does he have?” The court’s decision on the case is not expected until June 2022.