Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Miranda Violation Not Actionable Under § 1983
Leading case
Vega v. Tekoh, 142 S. Ct. 2095 (2022)
How courts have described it
holding that a Miranda violation does not pro- vide a basis for a § 1983 claim
Waukegan Potawatomi Casino, LLC v. City of Waukegan, 128 F.4th 871 (7th Cir. 2025)
holding that a violation of Miranda does not give rise to a cognizable claim under § 1983
Darius D. Jones v. David Brent Brooks, et al. (N.D. Fla. 2025)
noting that Miranda’s “purpose is served by the suppression at trial of statements obtained in violation of Miranda and by the application of that decision in other recognized contexts”
Simmons v. Gierach (E.D. Wis. 2024)
noting that “the Fifth Amendment” is “made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment”
State of Alabama v. Scully (S.D. Ala. 2024)
holding that “a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and [does not] confer a right to sue under § 1983”
Wiltz v. Grieves (M.D. Fla. 2024)
finding “no justification” to permit Miranda violations “to confer a right to sue under § 1983” because “a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment[.]”
Walker v. The County of Nassau (E.D.N.Y. 2023)
noting that it is an “insupportable position” to suggest that a “Miranda violation is tantamount to a violation of the Fifth Amendment”
State of Arizona v. Giovani Fuster Melendez, 565 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. 2025)
Related doctrines
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.