Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

VEGA v. TEKOH 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–499.  Argued April 20, 2022—Decided June 23, 2022 

The case arose out of the interrogation of respondent, Terence Tekoh, by
petitioner, Los Angeles County Sheriff ’s Deputy Carlos Vega.  Deputy
Vega questioned Tekoh at the medical center where Tekoh worked re-
garding the reported sexual assault of a patient.  Vega did not inform
Tekoh of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436.  Tekoh 
eventually  provided  a  written  statement  apologizing  for  inappropri-
ately touching the patient’s genitals.  Tekoh was prosecuted for unlaw-
ful sexual penetration.  His written statement was admitted against 
him at trial.  After the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, Tekoh sued 
Vega under 42 U. S. C. §1983, seeking damages for alleged violations
of his constitutional rights.  The Ninth Circuit held that the use of an 
un-Mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceed-
ing  violates  the  Fifth  Amendment  and  may  support  a  §1983  claim 
against the officer who obtained the statement. 

Held: A  violation  of  the  Miranda  rules  does  not  provide  a  basis  for  a 

§1983 claim.  Pp. 4–16.

(a) Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person acting
under color of state law who “subjects” a person “to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and 
laws.”  Tekoh argues that a violation of Miranda constitutes a violation 
of  the  Fifth  Amendment  right  against  compelled  self-incrimination. 
That is wrong.  Pp. 4–13.

(1) In Miranda, the Court concluded that additional procedural pro-
tections were necessary to prevent the violation of the Fifth Amend-
ment right against self-incrimination when suspects who are in cus-
tody  are  interrogated  by  the  police.    Miranda  imposed  a  set  of 
prophylactic rules requiring that custodial interrogation be preceded