Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–499 
_________________ 

CARLOS VEGA, PETITIONER v. TERENCE B. TEKOH 

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

[June 23, 2022] 

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. 
This case presents the question whether a plaintiff may
sue  a  police  officer  under  Rev.  Stat.  §1979,  42  U. S. C.
§1983, based on the allegedly improper admission of an “un-
Mirandized”1 statement in a criminal prosecution.  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 his place of em-
ployment and did not give him a Miranda warning.  Tekoh 
was prosecuted, and his confession was admitted into evi-
dence, but the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.  Tekoh 
then sued Vega under §1983, and the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the use of Tekoh’s 
un-Mirandized statement provided a valid basis for a §1983 
claim  against  Vega.  We  now  reject  this  extension  of  our 
Miranda case law. 

I 

In March 2014, Tekoh was working as a certified nursing 
assistant at a Los Angeles medical center.  When a female 
patient accused him of sexually assaulting her, the hospital 

—————— 

1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).