Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 6

2 

VEGA v. TEKOH 

Opinion of the Court 

staff  reported  the  accusation  to  the  Los  Angeles  County
Sheriff ’s Department, and Deputy Vega responded.  Vega
questioned Tekoh at length in the hospital, and Tekoh even-
tually  provided  a  written  statement  apologizing  for  inap-
propriately touching the patient’s genitals.  The parties dis-
pute whether Vega used coercive investigatory techniques
to extract the statement, but it is undisputed that he never 
informed Tekoh of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 
U. S. 436 (1966), which held that during a custodial inter-
rogation police officers must inform a suspect that “he has 
the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used 
against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the
presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an at-
torney one will be appointed for him prior to any question-
ing.”  Id., at 479. 

Tekoh was arrested and charged in California state court 
with unlawful sexual penetration.  At Tekoh’s first trial, the 
judge  held  that  Miranda  had  not  been  violated  because 
Tekoh was not in custody when he provided the statement, 
but  the  trial  resulted  in  a  mistrial.    When  Tekoh  was  re-
tried, a second judge again denied his request to exclude the 
confession.  This trial resulted in acquittal, and Tekoh then
brought  this  action  under  42  U. S. C.  §1983  against  Vega
and several other defendants seeking damages for alleged 
violations  of  his  constitutional  rights,  including  his  Fifth 
Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.

When this §1983 case was first tried, the jury returned a
verdict in favor of Vega, but the judge concluded that he had 
given an improper jury instruction and thus granted a new 
trial.  Before the second trial, Tekoh asked the court to in-
struct the jury that it was required to find that Vega vio-
lated  the  Fifth  Amendment  right  against  compelled  self- 
incrimination  if  it  determined  that  he  took  a  statement 
from Tekoh in violation of Miranda and that the statement 
was  then  improperly  used  against  Tekoh  at  his  criminal
trial.  The District Court declined, reasoning that Miranda