Bill Overview
Title: Miranda Rights Restoration Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides a private right of action for a violation of specified procedural rights related to custodial interrogation. It also provides individuals with a statutory right to sue and recover damages from federal officials for violations of their constitutional rights.
Sponsors: Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals subject to custodial interrogation
Estimated Size: 333000000
- The Miranda Rights Restoration Act of 2022 pertains to custodial interrogations, which are scenarios where individuals are most vulnerable to rights violations.
- Anyone who is at risk of custodial interrogation by law enforcement officials has the potential to be impacted by this legislation.
- The bill provides a private right of action, meaning individuals can take legal action if their Miranda rights are violated.
- Globally, Miranda rights or similar rights exist in many countries, but this U.S. legislation will specifically impact custodial interrogations conducted by U.S. federal officials.
- Individuals in the United States, particularly those who are more likely to come into contact with law enforcement, are the primary target population.
Reasoning
- The population likely to be affected by this policy includes individuals who are at greater risk of custodial interrogation by federal officials. This includes people from minority communities, low-income individuals, or those with prior interactions with law enforcement.
- Given the budget constraints, the number of cases that can be pursued may be limited, so the policy impact may initially only help a subset of those whose rights are violated.
- Interviews are selected from diverse backgrounds to assess varying levels of impact, with some individuals experiencing greater injustice due to socio-economic and racial factors.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's vital to have the ability to hold law enforcement accountable if they mishandle rights during interrogations. It could make officers more diligent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I've never been in such a situation, knowing that there's recourse is reassuring for communities often targeted by enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step forward in ensuring justice and preserving the integrity of rights during interrogations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's comforting to know there are potential safeguards, although I'm skeptical about how much will change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having fought for this country, I believe in calling out injustices like unlawful interrogation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Freelance Artist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there's focus on protection, though it's more theoretical for me. It's about intent and awareness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Nurse (Detroit, MI)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean justice for those who are unfairly treated, which I worry could happen to anyone in my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Construction Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our communities have experienced too many violations, but I think it's more symbolic unless applied well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to ensure our rights are protected at every juncture. This is reassuring for the future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
IT Professional (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could perhaps influence more transparency during international re-entries, where rights feel blurry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $83000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $86000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $91000000)
Year 10: $66000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $104000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $220000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill aims to empower individuals with avenues to address violations of their Miranda rights, potentially increasing accountability among federal agencies.
- Costs are primarily driven by legal actions, court workload, and compliance measures. Budget adjustments might be required to manage these effectively.
- The potential for federal budget impact is high due to the breadth of possible lawsuits and claims under this act.