The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled a person who is arrested for a civil immigration charge does not have the same Miranda Rights protection in criminal cases.
The case stems from a 2018 arrest
According to The Center Square, the three-judge panel issued the ruling this week. Jose Maria Zuniga De La Cruz was arrested by an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agent who believed he had enough evidence to show De La Cruz was here illegally.
Cruz filed an appeal against his arrest, which was not issued by a judge but by an ICE official. However, the Court ruled civil immigration cases do not carry the same rights as a criminal suspect.
The judges noted in their decision, that the original Miranda Rights do not carry the authority “for creating new versions of itself in the immigration context.“
De La Cruz had argue Miranda Rights should have given him protection from potentially self-incriminating or damaging statements he had to authorities.
The original Miranda case is from 1966, Miranda vs. Arizona. The Supreme Court ruled a suspects cannot have statements they make in front of law enforcement used against them unless they are first advised of their right to have a lawyer and the potential for self-incrimination. That’s where the “anything you say may be used against you in a court of law” statement comes from.
LOOK: What major laws were passed the year you were born?
Data for this list was acquired from trusted online sources and news outlets. Read on to discover what major law was passed the year you were born and learn its name, the vote count (where relevant), and its impact and significance.
Gallery Credit: Katelyn Leboff