I have some bad news for you. SCOTUS blew that one up yesterday. <sad trombone>
And there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. So, you better hope your lawyer can have anything you say suppressed before trial.
Explain this, please. You still have the right to remain silent, you still have the right to an attorney. The police still have to stop questioning you when you invoke these rights. Literally the only thing that changed was the notification requirement. That's it.
Basically, the Court removed any remedy against state actors who fail to uphold your right to remain silent.
Prior to Vega, if the state ignored your right to remain silent, you could seek redress with the courts.
Post Vega, that right to seek redress no longer exists.
On paper we still have the right. But, we have to no way to hold the state accountable when it fails to uphold that right. Is a right really a right if the state can ignore it with impunity?
You can still sue a cop who continues questioning you after you have invoked your right to remain silent. Literally nothing about that has changed. The one specific thing that has changed is that you can't sue a cop simply for failing to read you your rights.
That does not impact your right to remain silent, or any remedies available in case of violation of it, in any way.
And my response: I have some bad news for you. SCOTUS blew that one up yesterday.
There is no longer a right to be Mirandized. That's what I said.
Officer Vega locked Tekoh in a room and threaten him and his family in order to coerce a confession.
That confession was used in the trial.
Are you saying there is some other way to recover damages from Vega? At best, had Tekoh been found guilty, he was looking at years of appeals. He still wouldn't have been able to sue Vega under the current ruling.
As I said above, yes, you still have the right to remain silence. But you no longer have a way to seek redress against a LEO who ignores that right.
So did the ninth amendment, FWIW: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Appelate courts decide on what a "right" is. That's arguably their most important function. Huge, huge chunks of modern constitutional law are based on subjects not enumerated in the constitution. The constitution doesn't speak about miscegenation laws, or miranda rights, etc... Yet those are still "rights" that you'd be awfully horrified to have destroyed, right?
This argument doesn't really work, basically. The argument you're making is, if you really think about it, not what you actually want.