Another important U.S. Supreme Court ruling this month has been overshadowed by the controversy about overturning abortion rights.

Legal experts say the court has weakened the rights of people who've been arrested in its 6-3 decision in the case Vega v. Tekoh.

At issue was a landmark 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, which prompted the statement police read to people as they're arrested, to inform them of their rights.

Vincent Bonventre, professor at Albany Law School, said the high court is making a distinction between Miranda protections and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

"While an individual can sue under '1983' for a violation of his constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination, the court said that the individual cannot sue under '1983' for violation of Miranda rights, because Miranda rights aren't constitutional rights," Bonventre explained.

The '1983' to which Bonventre refers is Section 1983 of the Ku Klux Klan Act, an amendment to the 1871 law which allows people to file lawsuits if they feel their constitutional rights have been violated.

The new ruling means in such cases, a person cannot sue law enforcement officials under federal civil-rights law for Miranda warning violations.

But Bonventre pointed out New York's Court of Appeals as well as other state courts can protect Miranda rights more than the Supreme Court, and without penalty. He does not think the Vega v. Tekoh decision will be as major a change to the legal system as it seems.

"The court did not have to rule this way," Bonventre emphasized. "The court could have said, 'Well, Miranda rights are important enough, and they are part of constitutional law, even though they are not the actual constitutional right. And therefore, we want to protect them by allowing individuals to sue when their Miranda rights are violated.' "

The original 1966 case has for decades provided a safeguard for people against the right to self-incrimination through forced confessions.

New York City community advocates want to reduce the number of stop-and-frisk encounters with police.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New York City reported the city's police department made more than 15,000 stops so far in 2023, the most since 2015. Data also show police primarily stopped Black and Latino people, although they were mostly innocent or not given a summons.

Christine Rivera, defense attorney for adolescents at Bronx Defenders, said the City Council is looking at legislation to increase transparency about why the stops are necessary.

"What the How Many Stops Act is asking for is, we want reports on those lower-level encounters as well," Rivera explained. "First of all, the federal monitor said that 29% of all Level 3 stops are not even being properly recorded. So, we don't even have the proper data for what is required right now."

The bill also calls for proper documentation of Level 1 and Level 2 stops. The measure builds on the Right to Know Act, which went into effect in 2018.

Rivera noted once the bill is passed, community groups such as hers will work on implementation, including developing a new documentation system, seeing what kind of oversight can eliminate problems and determining the training police officers will need for the new system.

Some precincts comply with federal monitors, but Rivera pointed out that those locations are not primarily where Black and Latino people are being stopped. In order for real change to come about, she feels state legislators might have to step in, since it is a growing problem on Long Island as well.

"Having our state legislators and our representatives apply pressure on the NYPD," Rivera suggested. "A lot of these police unions play a powerful role in these spaces, and maybe holding our council members' feet to the fire to say, 'Listen, you can't keep supporting this institution when it's causing so much harm in the community that you're representing.'"

She added community outreach and education has helped people understand the issues at hand. Her goal is to continue meeting with legislators and constituents to maintain the momentum on increasing police transparency.

Senate lawmakers are soon expected to vote on the Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act, legislation introduced this year by Republican Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

The bill would allow doctors to prescribe and pharmacies to dispense methadone for people with opioid-use disorder. Currently, methadone is tightly regulated and can only be accessed through certified opioid treatment facilities.

Jordan Scott, digital advocacy coordinator for the Pennsylvania Harm Reduction Network, said the regulations mostly affect people in rural regions who cannot get to methadone clinics or who end up using diverted methadone, which can lead to arrests and time in jail.

"There are some states, like West Virginia, where there's a state law in effect that places a hold on any new opioid treatment programs opening within the state," Scott pointed out. "And when we look at really rural areas, those numbers of how many people able to access methadone goes down even further."

Methadone is a Schedule II drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Critics of the bill argue methadone is an opiate which can be abused, and in some cases may be replacing one addictive medication for another, especially if used in isolation, without counseling or as part of a treatment program.

Scott contends the bill would make people less likely to rely on using street-supply substances with a high risk of containing fentanyl, if they know they can obtain methadone safely and locally.

"If my closest clinic is an hour-and-a-half, two hours away, but my primary care doctor is 20 minutes away, this act would allow me to be able to go to my primary care doctor," Scott emphasized.

The Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act would also require the federal government to track data nationwide on methadone prescriptions and the number of providers.

Government accountability groups want increased transparency in New York criminal court decisions. This comes after a new report finds only 6% of decisions are published annually.

Since the number of judges presiding over criminal cases isn't made available by the court system, it's uncertain how many judges aren't publishing decisions. Of the 600 New York criminal court judges publishing at least one decision, 20 were responsible for 28% of all decisions published.

Oded Oren, executive director of Scrutinize, a judicial accountability group, explained why transparency is so important.

"When decisionmakers or New Yorkers need to make a decision about whether to reappoint or re-elect a judge, it is important that they have information before them to understand how this judge is applying the law and what their decisions are," Oren said.

Without these written decisions, assessing judicial decision making and its impacts are much harder. One concern is a person's identity being made public in a published ruling.

Oren pointed out that, instead of putting a person's full name, judges can use a person's initials, their last name only or simply redact that information.

While laws are on the books about how decisions can be published, they're not being enforced. Reasons these decisions aren't being published include judges having high workloads, or feeling their day-to-day rulings aren't so important.

Rachael Fauss, senior policy analyst with Reinvent Albany, said there are ways to make it easier for judicial decisions to be published.

"Sometimes oral decisions are given, so a judge will say what the decision is and there's a transcript of that," Fauss said. "So, the transcripts could get published in the cases where there is not a written decision."

The report's recommendations include passing a bill requiring written decisions by criminal court judges to be publicly available online. This legislation will be introduced during the 2024 session of the New York State Legislature.


get more stories like this via email