2021—A Ninth Circuit panel rules (in Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles) that when prosecutors have used a defendant’s un-Mirandized statement (i.e., a statement given by a suspect before receiving Miranda warnings) to prove a criminal charge against him, that defendant may pursue a damages action under section 1983 against the officer who took the statement. Never mind that Chief Justice Rehnquist’s baffling opinion in Dickerson v. United States (2000), which declined to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966), avoided declaring that the use at trial of a voluntary but un-Mirandized statement violates the Constitution.
Some months later, seven Ninth Circuit judges will dissent from the court’s refusal to rehear the matter en banc. In 2022, the Supreme Court (in Vega v. Tekoh) will reverse the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 6 to 3.