Podcasts about tekoh

Julio Teko est un acteur originaire du Togo que vous avez certainement vu dans des productions sur Canal+ ou Life TV. Il vit à Lomé. Julio a vécu 17 ans sans voir sa mère.  Avec Diane Audrey, il raconte comment il apprend un peu plus chaque jour à créer une relation mère/fils et l'importance de pardoner à ses parents pour faire mieux et être en paix.  Les mots de Diane Audrey : Julio est un artrepreneur qui slide entre les métiers de comédien, slammeur, animateur,  voix-off, et manager général du festival « Tchalé lékéma ». Lorsque vous le voyez ou que vous l'entendez son aura, sa présence ne peuvent laisser transparaître son histoire. Julio a grandi au Gabon, à Libreville aux côtés de sa famille paternelle. C'est la feu petite soeur de son père qui l'a élevé. C'est à 10 ans qu'il apprend que sa mère est en vie et vit à Lomé avec son père. Il apprendra un peu plus tard que sa famille maternelle n'aimait pas beaucoup sa mère et que son départ pour Libreville avait vocation de séparer ses parents. Peine perdu, ils auront d'autres enfants, ses petits frères qu'il rencontrera à 17 ans, tout comme sa mère. Dans cet épisode, il nous raconte sa premiere rencontre avec sa mère et combien elle était heureuse de voir son fils revenir à la maison. Il nous partage aussi la difficulté de trouver sa place dans un foyer où tout le monde connaissait la sienne. 15 ans après son retour, c'est aujourd'hui qu'il crée des rituels pour sortir du «c'est ma mère sans plus » et se donner une chance de vivre une vraie relation mère-fils. Son déclic ? Le décès de son père il y a 2 ans. C'est à lui que nous dédions cet épisode et que son âme continue de reposer en paix.    Cher.e.s auditeurs, auditrices, je vous invite à écouter ce podcast et à le partager. L'enregistrement de cette saison 4 est possible grâce au soutien de Spotify Africa et l'agence OMENKART. N'hésitez pas à nous donner vos feedbacks via notre compte instagram (@Simamanmavaitdit) ou en commentaire en utilisant le hashtag #SIMAMANMAVAITDIT. Afin d'accompagner la production, vous êtes invités à nous soutenir sur Tipee : https://fr.tipeee.com/si-maman-mavait-dit D'ici là je vous souhaite pleines de bonnes choses et on se donne rendez-vous jeudi 10 août  2023.

Cops have to read you your Miranda rights. If they don't … nothing happens, according to this recent Supreme Court ruling. Probably nothing to worry about here.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.If you're not a Patreon member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Patreon-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at patreon.com/fivefourpod. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eric dives into the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Vega v. Tekoh. The Supreme Court held that an officer's failure to issue Miranda warnings does not solely provide basis for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against police. This episode will highlight the background of Miranda, how the June 23rd, 2022 ruling impacts law enforcement, and what this means for Miranda procedures during arrests.

In this episode we discuss Vega v. Tekoh, which determined that an officer's failure to read a person their Miranda rights does not constitute grounds for a claim of civil liability.

We catch up on listener questions and feedback (both positive and negative), and then spend a while on the neglected case of Vega v. Tekoh, about the intersection of remedies and Miranda. We also discuss Kennedy v. Bremerton, the case of the praying football coach. Unfortunately, Will recorded all of this into the wrong microphone.

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Vega v. Tekoh. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court held that a violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:John Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter; head of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court practice

There was a lot to take in as a result of this most recent Supreme Court term, so you would be forgiven if, while processing the overturning of Roe v. Wade and some of the other headline making decisions that were rendered, you may have missed a case involving Miranda rights. What did the court decide in Vega v. Tekoh, and why is it important? We asked David Rudovsky, Senior Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a civil rights attorney with the firm of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin, LLP. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week, we look back at several of the big decisions that came down from the U.S. Supreme Court in its most recent term, including New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, West Virginia v. EPA, and Vega v. Tekoh. We also look ahead to a couple of the major cases coming down the pike next term and discuss the alarming trends that are arising with this packed Court's conservative supermajority. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Jeanne Hruska, ACS Sr Advisor for Communications and Strategy Host: Evan Monod, ACS Law Fellow Guest: Christopher Wright Durocher, ACS Vice President for Policy and Program Guest: Lindsay Langholz, ACS Director of Policy and Program Link: 2021-2022 ACS National Supreme Court Review Program Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2022.

Welcome to Fireside Breakdowns season 3! We're wasting no time this season - we're jumping straight into the deep end with a series about how the Supreme Court decisions that were handed down this Summer could potentially affect life for ALL Americans. We feel like we saw the beginnings of a well-lined path being laid out for the U.S. - some might even say a train track - and we're concerned about where it will lead us if we don't pay attention. That's why we're going to start by taking a closer look at some of the decisions released by the Supreme Court in May and June 2022. Many of these cases were widely publicized. Some were published without much fanfare. But each of them could have significant impacts on the way we live our lives from this point on. Bonus discussion of Shinn v Ramirez + Episode 2 of the series - 1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back - are available NOW on Patreon. Cases discussed: Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, West Virginia v EPA, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc v. Bruen, Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, and Vega v. Tekoh. What's in this episode? Discussion of each of the above cases, and their potential impact on the future We get very salty about Brett Kavanaugh Good News: DHHS guidelines on emergency abortions If you'd like to get in touch… You can leave us a review at: https://ratethispodcast.com/fireside Or you can drop us a note from our Contact page! You can find all of our sources in our Show Notes. And, check out our Patreon Page! Patrons get access to early episode drops, bonus content, priority topic requests, quarterly happy hours, and more!

In this episode, we return to the Supreme Court Hall of Shame to talk about Griswold v. Connecticut and explain why bad laws aren't automatically unconstitutional. We also discuss why American Hospital Association v. Becerra is a solid example of the Court's restraint and review Vega v. Tekoh's impact on Miranda rights (spoiler alert: it didn't have any, but it might still be a disappointing decision).All this, plus a tour of some of the most blistering hot takes from the world of online legal commentary, including why there aren't special “protected” parts of the Constitution, why it's not true that “anything is legal if there's a contract for it,” and the sad case of a Twitter user who should really have paid more attention in elementary school.Supreme Court Hall of Shame – Griswold v. Connecticut (0:06:00)American Hospital Association v. Becerra (0:35:20)Vega v. Tekoh (0:59:15)Hot takes (1:16:15)

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2021-2022 session wrapped up in June. And while the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade arguably grabbed the most headlines, there were quite a few groundbreaking opinions from the court this term. In this episode, our hosts discuss Vega v. Tekoh (limiting Miranda rights), Biden v. Texas (ending "Remain in Mexico"), and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (expanding Second Amendment rights).  Learn more about these topics on FindLaw: Miranda v. Arizona Case Summary Despite SCOTUS Ruling, New York Aims to Restrict Gun Carrying Supreme Court Allows Biden Administration to End "Remain in Mexico" 

Eyal Weintraub es militante de Jóvenes por el Clima y parte del equipo de Tekohá, una incubadora de proyectos de impacto sustentables para jovenes

Court declines to extend §1983 suits to violations of prophylactic rules protecting constitutional rights.Support the show

On June 23rd, the Court decided Vega vs. Tekoh, a case which concerned whether an un-mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the fifth amendment and might support a section 1983 claim against the officer who obtained the statement. Joining today to discuss the Court's decision is Misha Tseyltin, partner at Troutman Pepper and leader of the firm's national Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group.

Wes, Eneasz, and David discuss the news from the last two weeks from a rationalist perspective. This week, it's all Supreme Court!Support us on Substack!News discussed:Followup: Turkey is supporting Sweden and Finland's NATO applicationsSCOTUS NewsRoe is deadEgbert v. Boule - border patrol agents can't be sued for excessive forceAhmed v. Weyker - 8th Circuit - (deputized) federal officer invented a fake drug trafficking ring and fabricated a bunch of evidenceByrd v. Lamb - 5th Circuit - DHS agent tried to kill a guy for personal reasonsNYSRPA v. Bruen - “may issue” gun permits are unconstitutionalRelated - gun control bill passed SenateVega v. Tekoh - victim can't sue for lack of Miranda warningsWest Virginia v. EPA - EPA can't regulate carbon emissionsOklahoma v. Castro-Huerta - State criminal laws apply to non-Indians on Indian landBiden v. Texas - Biden can end the “remain in Mexico” asylum policyDenezpi v. US - double jeopardy clause is dead?Carson v. Macon - essentially reiterates Espinoza saying school choice programs can't exclude religiousRelated - Shurtleff v. Boston - if State allows citizens to fly flags at city hall, they can't prohibit “Christian flag”KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT - Coach leading prayer on field after game is OKClarence Thomas is at the peak of his powerThomas: "substantive due process" is an oxymoron that "lack[s] any basis in the Constitution." Happy News!FIRE goes globalPG&E Commissions Its Moss Landing Elkhorn Battery 158 Tesla Mega-Batteries Will Boost Hawaii Green Energy By 10%, And Shut Down Coal-Fired Power PlantQilin Battery can achieve 1,000 km vehicle rangeImplant that relieves pain on demand and without the use of drugsA stray dog in the country of Georgia has appointed himself as the local crossing guard for young children crossing a busy intersection. He's a very serious boy.Got something to say? Come chat with us on the Bayesian Conspiracy Discord or email us at themindkillerpodcast@gmail.com. Say something smart and we'll mention you on the next show!Follow us!RSS: http://feeds.feedburner.com/themindkillerGoogle: https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/Iqs7r7t6cdxw465zdulvwikhekmPocket Casts: https://pca.st/vvcmifu6 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-mind-killer Apple: Intro/outro music: On Sale by Golden Duck Orchestra This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit mindkiller.substack.com/subscribe

Is an officer's failure to advise Miranda warnings grounds for a lawsuit? The Supreme Court answered that question in its recent decision Vega v. Tekoh.Vega v. Tekoh 21-499: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdfI provide legal training for law enforcement. Find out more about my LEO courses at: http://policelegaltraining.comSearch and Seizure training for New Mexico LEOs: https://tacticalattorney.comWatch the Podcast on YouTube: https://youtu.be/4Fw5tkRO_6wErik Scramlin is a former Chief Deputy District Attorney and currently serves as the Senior Attorney Instructor at Tactical Legal Solutions, LLC. Courses and contact information available at http://policelegaltraining.comGet a copy of the Tactical Attorney Objections and Foundations Cheat Sheet here: https://www.subscribepage.com/tacticalattorney_copyDISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice. This content and all of Tactical Attorney's content is for informational purposes only. You should contact your attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to any particular issue. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship of any kind.

On Friday the U.S. Supreme Court released several decisions, many of them major decisions in their domain and beyond. This week I spoke with Professor Mary Rose of the University of Texas-Austin about three of those Supreme Court decisions: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, and Vega v. Tekoh. Professor Rose identifies important new directions these decisions signal, and reflects on the implications of these directions for the judges' reasoning, decision-making, and the exercise of rights. Single Segment -- Mary Rose on Dobbs, New York Rifle and Pistol Association, and Vega

You see that last lonely doughnut in the corner of the box on the breakroom table, the one everyone else left behind because it's overstuffed with too much dull red jelly leaking out its side, a grease stain spreading out from under it—what you know about that doughnut is that you're going to eat it, each bite less satisfying than the one that preceded it, and at some point a couple hours from now you'll be asking yourself why felt compelled to power through and finish the thing. That doughnut is this podcast, a pastry too insubstantial to contain all the SCOTUS stuffed in and now leaking out. Listen, if you must! Has something we said, or failed to say, made you FEEL something? You can tell us all about it on Facebook or Twitter, leave a comment on the show's page on our website, or you can send us an email here. Enjoy!Show RundownOpen — NIMBYs and YIMBYs battle it out in these (Facebook) streets10:02 — SCOTUS suddenly no longer boring; first up New York gun case21:27 — Vega v Tekoh (cops can't be sued in civil court for Miranda warning violations)28:43 — Kennedy v Bremerton School District (prayer in school by teachers and coaches)36:59 — Can we talk about Dobbs now?37:21 — A prophetic aside about Freddie Freeman39:32 — Now we can talk about Dobbs!2:00:37 — Nance v Ward (Georgia death row inmate can petition to choose his method of execution)2:03:56 — Wrap up! Elvis, The Black Phone, and a trip to Farmville, VARelevant Linkage can be found at the show's website: www.brainiron.com/podcast/episode0101

Norm opens the show talking about the frenzy that has become criminal court in a post COVID judicial system, and offers an anecdote or two to shed some light on why the public's often low regard for attorneys is sometimes justified.  Norm then transitions to a discussion of one SCOTUS decision from this term that did not get much press during recent days, what he calls a "sleep decision", Vega v. Tekoh, which deals with Miranda Warnings.  You know "Miranda Warnings" from TV shows, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney . . ."  SCOTUS held that Section 1983 claims may perhaps not be sustained simply because a law enforcement official neglects to read an arrestee his or her Miranda rights at the point of arrenst.  Norm offers some general advice about how to handle inquiries from law enforcement. Pay attention! The Fifth Amendment protects us from being compelled to make statements against our interests. So what now? Well, Miranda Warnings are only required when a person is in custody. But that is a very tenuous place during an encounter with law enforcement. Norm breaks down why this is chilling—that Miranda rights are merely prophylatic measures serving the "greater good" rather than constitutional rights.  Norm then comments on his contempt for Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont's overt and shameless willingness to make the Dobbs decision a tone deaf campaign issue.  The J6 Committee is hearing new evidence about Trump's activities on January 6. Are we even to take them seriously? Norm spends most of the balance of the show discussing the concept of authoritarianism and suggesting authoritarian dystopian literary classics for loyal listeners to discover or rediscover.  Like, share, and subscribe. Norm is live every weekday from 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter. 

Norm opens the show talking about the frenzy that has become criminal court in a post COVID judicial system, and offers an anecdote or two to shed some light on why the public's often low regard for attorneys is sometimes justified.  Norm then transitions to a discussion of one SCOTUS decision from this term that did not get much press during recent days, what he calls a "sleep decision", Vega v. Tekoh, which deals with Miranda Warnings.  You know "Miranda Warnings" from TV shows, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney . . ."  SCOTUS held that Section 1983 claims may perhaps not be sustained simply because a law enforcement official neglects to read an arrestee his or her Miranda rights at the point of arrenst.  Norm offers some general advice about how to handle inquiries from law enforcement. Pay attention! The Fifth Amendment protects us from being compelled to make statements against our interests. So what now? Well, Miranda Warnings are only required when a person is in custody. But that is a very tenuous place during an encounter with law enforcement. Norm breaks down why this is chilling—that Miranda rights are merely prophylatic measures serving the "greater good" rather than constitutional rights.  Norm then comments on his contempt for Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont's overt and shameless willingness to make the Dobbs decision a tone deaf campaign issue.  The J6 Committee is hearing new evidence about Trump's activities on January 6. Are we even to take them seriously? Norm spends most of the balance of the show discussing the concept of authoritarianism and suggesting authoritarian dystopian literary classics for loyal listeners to discover or rediscover.  Like, share, and subscribe. Norm is live every weekday from 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter. 

01:10 SCOTUS frees cops from certain lawsuits 05:03 Backlash on school shooting massacre continues 13:51 De-escalation after stabbing partner on video LEO Round Table (law enforcement talk show) Season 7, Episode 26a (1,760) filmed on 06/27/2022 Topic 1 concerns the Supreme Court case, Vega vs. Tekoh, ruling that officers cannot be sued for skipping Miranda Warnings, however, they must be used for a suspect's confession to be told in court. Topic 2 concerns Texas Department of Public Safety Director Col. Steve McCraw calling the Uvalde (Texas) Police response an "abject failure", Officer Ruben Ruiz was reportedly detained trying to save his now deceased wife Eva Mireles during the shooting, and Superintendent Hal Harrell placing Chief Pete Arredondo on leave. Topic 3 concerns a suspect stabbing an officer on video, then finally being shot by officers. Also mentioned: Albany (New York) Police Chief Eric Hawkins. Show Panelists and Personalities: Chip DeBlock (Host and retired police Detective) Ward Meythaler (Attorney and former Federal Prosecutor) John Newman (retired police Chief) Bret Bartlett (retired police Captain) David D'Agresta (retired police Officer and sheriff's Corporal) Andrea Casale (retired police Officer) Will Statzer (Producer) Content Partners: ThisIsButter - One of the BEST law enforcement video channels https://www.youtube.com/c/ThisIsButter1/ The Free Press - LEO Round Table is in their Cops and Crimes section 5 days a week https://www.tampafp.com/ https://www.tampafp.com/category/cops-and-crime/ Video Show Schedule: Mondays at 7pm ET - 90 minute LIVE show on YouTube, Facebook1, Facebook2, LinkedIn and Twitter Tue - Sat at 9am ET - Excerpts from LIVE show are uploaded to YouTube and Rumble (approx. time) Syndicated Radio Schedule: http://leoroundtable.com/radio/syndicated-radio-stations/ Podcasts: https://anchor.fm/leoroundtable Website: http://leoroundtable.com/ Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/leoroundtable Parler: https://parler.com/profile/LEORoundTable/media YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/leoroundtable Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/leoroundtable/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/LEORoundTable LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/leo-round-table Sponsors: Galls - Proud To Serve America's Public Safety Professionals https://www.galls.com/ Bang Energy - Energy drinks and products https://bangenergy.com/ The International Firearm Specialist Academy - The New Standard for Firearm Knowledge https://www.gunlearn.com/ Guardian Alliance Technologies - Hire Smarter, Investigate Applicants with Precision & Speed https://guardianalliancetechnologies.com/ MyMedicare.live - save money in Medicare insurance options from the experts http://www.mymedicare.live/ TAC-TOTE - Rapid access and deployment with magnetic technology https://tac-tote.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/leoroundtable/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/leoroundtable/support

If you watched Tuesday's hearing, you saw the heartbreaking story of how these two amazing women were viciously slandered by Rudy Giuliani and other members of the big lie insurrectionists. Their lives were absolutely turned upside down by complete racist fabrications. Do they have recourse? What will happen? Then, Andrew breaks down the complete breakdown of the legal fabric of our society. Say goodbye to any meaningful sense in which you have the right to remain silent! The Supreme Court has gutted Miranda rights, because why the f not, apparently. Oh but they make up for it by eroding states' ability to restrict open carry of guns. So that's cool. Links: environmental lawyer quote, Freeman and Moss v Giuliani, Giuliani idiot motion to dismiss, Maryland Code, Public Safety § 5-306, Vega v. Tekoh, 42 US Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

While Ed and Lee wait on the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Mississippi they discuss the most recent decisions including the New York Rifle and Pistol case striking down NY's prohibitive gun carry law and Berger v NC NAACP which allows the NC legislature to defend the voter ID law they passed.  Other decision discussed is Vega v Tekoh in which the Court said that a police violation of the Miranda warning is not a basis for a law suit and Carson v Makin which allows state funding to religious schools.Also, the Senate has just passed a new gun bill.  Lee breaks down the wide-ranging provisions - many of which have nothing to do with guns or school safety - and what they cost.  All this and more.Email:  Comments@LetsThinkPodcast.comTwitter: @LetsThinkPodca2Gettr:  @LetsThinkPodParler:  @LetsThinkPodInstagram:  LetsThinkAboutThatPodcast

Juancito: Un nuevo tekohá Un día, de ida al trabajo, en el bullicio de la ciudad, lejos de tu Tekohá, nos cruzamos en la calle. Esa vez, empecé a percatarme de tu especial comportamiento, más que de tu apariencia, como niño de la calle. Tu forma de acercarte y tu cuidado lenguaje me mostraron y enseñaron que la ciudad no era tu Tekohá. En tu penetrante guaraní me dijisteis que, con tu familia, venías de una lejana comunidad y de un monte que ya no era monte. Otro día, en la misma esquina, en uno de nuestros encuentros, me regalasteis el testimonio de tu sincera estima. Como regalo, en vez de dinero, preferías al pequeño muñeco, que, en el trajín callejero, transportaba como compañero. Te dije que mucho lo sentía; a ese muñeco mucho lo quería, porque era un compañero entrañable, regalado por alguien también entrañable. Sin titubeos ni rodeos, me contestasteis que no me preocupara, y que, de ese muñeco, nde hina la ijara. Aquel fue nuestro último diálogo. Desde entonces, aquella esquina quedó sin tu tierna figura, y tus enseñanzas me hieren como gran espina. Son enseñanzas que me hieren, por que, además de su signo tan humano, las asimile en la calle de la ciudad, en medio de un mundo tan inhumano. Juancito: Esa herida se curará cuando tú, tu gente y nosotros logremos construir juntos, para todos, un nuevo Tekohá. Juancito: Tekoha pyahu Peteῖ árape, ahávo amba´apohağua, pe ayvu oῖa távape, mombyry la nde Tekohagui, jajojuhu tapére. Uperoğuaré, añepyru aikuaa mbaeíchapa nde reikóva, nda ha´ei la reju háicha, peteῖ mita´i taperegua. Pereñemomýi háicha, ha pereñe´ẽkuaa háicha ohechauka ha chembo´e ko távape nda hae´i nde róga. Nde ñe´ẽ guaraní porӑpe, jerecheve, nde rogaguandivé, rejuha mombyry guive ha peteῖ Ka´aguy ndahaíva Ka´aguy. Peteῖ ára pyahupe, jajojuhu haguepe, jajotopa chevyvo re me'ẽ chéve jevy nde mboraihu teete. Peteῖ jaropojaipycha, viru rangüe, reipotave pe mbaevyky agueraháva pe tapere che iruícharõ. Ha´ẽ ndeve ambyasyha, ko mba´evyky ahayhuiterei, ha´ẽ che iru teéte, ome´ẽvaikue chéve peteῖ cherayhuva. Ha nde ñe´ẽ porӑpe, ere chéve ani rejepyapy, ko mba´evyky nde hina ijára. Upeva´ekue ñandeñe´ẽ paha, upeguive, pe tape, opyta nendive´y ha la chembova akue chembohasy. Umi ñe´ẽmbo´e che jopy ha guereko mba´e porӑ aikuaava´ekue távape peteῖ tekoha ndaiporáῖva. Juancito: pe jekutu okuerӑta, nde, nderu ha ndesy, orendivendi, ikatútaramo jajapo oñondive, ñande mba´erӑ, peteῖ Tekoha Pyaju. (Traducción: Luis Armando Galeano y Ana Galeano)

1 Vega v. Tekoh and Miranda Rights Terence Tekoh worked as a patient transporter in a hospital in Los Angeles. After a patient accused him of sexual assault, hospital staff reported the allegation to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. Deputy Carlos Vega went to the hospital to question Tekoh and take his statement. Although the parties described vastly different accounts of the nature of the interaction between Tekoh and Vega, it is undisputed that Vega did not advise Tekoh of his Miranda rights prior to questioning him or taking his statement.  Vec discusses Miranda and stare decisis in Vega v. Tekoh, a case pending before the Supreme Court. 2 NCLA Files Amicus Brief in Ohio Supreme Court Deference Lawsuit NCLA has filed an amicus brief in TWISM Enterprises, LLC v. State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors, urging the Supreme Court of Ohio to declare agency deference unconstitutional. NCLA argues that the Hamilton County Court of Appeals erred by deferring to the Ohio Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Surveyors' “reasonable interpretation” of what the court characterized as “ambiguous statutes and administrative rules.” Agency deference violates the Ohio and federal constitutions by requiring judges to abandon their duty of independent judgment. Mark discusses NCLA's amicus brief before the Ohio Supreme Court on state chevron. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Vega v. Tekoh

Vega v. Tekoh

A case in which the Court will decide whether a plaintiff may state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the officer's failure to provide Miranda warnings.

Vega v. Tekoh | 04/20/22 | Docket #: 21-499

How many pop culture references can a judge make in an opinion before we start to cringe? “Dean” of #AppellateTwitter Raffi Melkonian joins us to give his thoughts on a recent Ninth Circuit case that perhaps broke the all-time record for “coolness,” perhaps to such an extent that it got in the way of its own underlying legal argument. Plus, Diana Simpson looks at another case from the Left Coast, trying to thread the needle on whether “Your right to remain silent” is a “constitutional right” or merely a “constitutional rule.” What's the difference? We're not really sure. Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles (en banc), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/03/18-56414.pdf Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles (panel opinion), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/01/15/18-56414.pdf Briseno v. Henderson, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/01/19-56297.pdf McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing (Phil Simms quote), https://casetext.com/case/mccaughtry-v-city-of-red-wing-3 Raffi Melkonian, https://www.wrightclosebarger.com/attorneys/raffi-melkonian/ Diana Simpson, https://ij.org/staff/diana-simpson/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org