Allen v. Eicher, Civ. No. 17908.
Decision Date | 03 February 1969 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 17908. |
Parties | Edward L. ALLEN v. Sgt. Ralph EICHER, Off. Ferd Stuckrath and Off. Charles Wells. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Russell R. Reno, Jr., Baltimore, Md. (Court-appointed), for plaintiff.
Paul Berman, Baltimore, Md., for defendants.
Plaintiff, Edward L. Allen, seeks $50,000.00 damages from each of the defendants alleging that the three defendants, all Baltimore City policemen, obtained an incriminating statement from him without advising him of his constitutional right to remain silent in complete violation of the doctrine of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1964). Jurisdiction is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. In his amended complaint, filed with the assistance of court-appointed counsel, plaintiff alleges the following facts:
Plaintiff's basic allegation is that defendants violated his constitutional rights by interrogating him without the proper warnings, and that he is entitled to damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Said motion is hereby granted.
Plaintiff misconstrues the impact of Miranda. In that case, the Supreme Court held that "* * * the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, (1966). Thus, Miranda provides that statements which fail to comply with its requirements are inadmissible at trial. However, Miranda does not per se make an interrogation which violates its precepts into an actionable tort. Unlike an illegal arrest, or an illegal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Raffety v. Prince George's Cty.
...the failure to advise one of Miranda rights does not create a cause of action under the Civil Rights Acts. See, e. g., Allen v. Eicher, 295 F.Supp. 1184 (D.Md. 1969) and Thornton v. Buchmann, 392 F.2d 870 (7th Cir. These defendants also cite Ambrek v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 208 (E.D.Pa.1968) an......
-
Duncan v. Nelson
...g., Thornton v. Buchanan, 392 F.2d 870 (7th Cir. 1968); Ransom v. City of Philadelphia, 311 F. Supp. 973 (E.D.Penn.1970); Allen v. Eicher, 295 F.Supp. 1184 (D.Md.1969); Ambrek v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 208 (E.D. Penn.1968). Those decisions would not be inconsistent with a finding that a factual......
-
Chrisco v. Shafran
...1214 & n.14 (D.S.C.1977); Hampton v. Gilmore, 60 F.R.D. 71, 81 (E.D. Mo.), aff'd, 486 F.2d 1407 (8th Cir. 1973); Allen v. Eicher, 295 F.Supp. 1184, 1185-86 (D.Md. 1969); Ambrek v. Clark, 287 F.Supp. 208, 210 11 The majority, in affirming Sikora's conviction, entered a judgment order conclud......
-
Turner v. Lynch
...v. Hudson (D.S.C.1977) 436 F.Supp. 1210; Hampton v. Gilmore (E.D.Mo.) 60 F.R.D. 71, aff'd, (8th Cir. 1973) 486 F.2d 1407; Allen v. Eicher (D.Md.1969) 295 F.Supp. 1184; Ambrek v. Clark (E.D.Pa.1968) 287 F.Supp. 208; Chrisco v. Shafran, et al. (D.Del.1981) 507 F.Supp. 1312. Whatever wrong the......