{"id":5615,"date":"2022-07-15T19:54:00","date_gmt":"2022-07-15T19:54:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?post_type=publications&p=5615"},"modified":"2025-10-01T19:55:36","modified_gmt":"2025-10-01T19:55:36","slug":"warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all","status":"publish","type":"publications","link":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/","title":{"rendered":"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Warning<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

You have the right to remain silent and to an attorney, and what you say can be used against you in a court of law.  From Sergeant Joe Friday on \u201cDragnet\u201d to Lennie Briscoe on \u201cLaw & Order,\u201d millions of television viewers have been Mirandized<\/em> by these all-too-familiar warnings such that they have become as much a part of police work as handcuffs and a badge.  The late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed, \u201cMiranda <\/em>has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.\u201d[1]<\/a>  The \u201cMiranda<\/em> warnings,\u201d which arose out of a \u201cconstitutional rule\u201d provided by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona[2]<\/a><\/em> over 50 years ago, has become guarded precedent such that the Court has shielded it from attack even if subsequent jurists disagreed with its decree \u2013 at least for now.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another well-established rule is the ability to sue the government when one\u2019s rights have been violated.  Section 1983 is a federal statute that allows a person to sue those in government who cause a \u201cdeprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.\u201d[4]<\/a>   The statute was passed at a time when the federal government became concerned with states that may be \u201cunable or unwilling\u201d to protect individual freedoms and enforce the laws, and if a state would not intervene, federal courts could do so.[5]<\/a>  Section 1983 is the statute often used to claim the government acted in an unconstitutional manner and that a statute should be enjoined or an injured party should be compensated with money damages \u2013 e.g.<\/em>, challenging an Ohio public school district\u2019s discipline of students[6]<\/a>; holding prison guards liable for using excessive force that caused death in the Toledo, Ohio area[7]<\/a>; and challenging the Ohio Department of Health\u2019s refusal to change sex markers on birth certificates for transgender persons[8]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Miranda<\/em> and Section 1983 recently intersected in the matter of Vega v. Tekoh<\/em>.  The Supreme Court faced a dilemma: if police officers violated a \u201cconstitutional rule\u201d created by Miranda<\/em> that was meant to protect the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, could a person sue for money damages under Section 1983 as he would for any other violation of a right?  (Spoiler Alert:  No.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case arose out of a confession to sexual assault.  A patient accused Terence Tekoh (\u201cTekoh\u201d), a certified nursing assistant, of sexual assault, and after questioning by Deputy Carlos Vega (\u201cVega\u201d), Tekoh eventually signed a written confession.  That confession was used at trial over Tekoh\u2019s objection.  Tekoh was acquitted, and he sued Vega in federal court alleging a violation of his civil rights \u2013 specifically, for violating his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination because Vega obtained a confession without first providing Miranda<\/em> warnings that was later used against him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One could reasonably conclude that when police officers obtain a confession without first issuing the Miranda<\/em> warnings, a \u201cconstitutional rule\u201d has been violated and the suspect could sue in federal court under Section 1983 for money damages.  After all, that is the purpose of Section 1983:  \u201cThe purpose of [Section 1983] is to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails.\u201d[9]<\/a>  That conclusion is arguably even more appropriate within the Miranda<\/em> context considering, as a group of scholars did in an amicus brief filed Vega<\/em>, similar warnings had been provided as a well-established practice for hundreds of years before the Miranda<\/em> decision itself.  The warnings were a fundamental part of legal culture.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court, however, saw the issue differently.  In Vega<\/em>, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that even if Miranda<\/em> was based on the Constitution, there is no \u201cright\u201d to Miranda <\/em>warnings, and thus no ability to invoke Section 1983 to vindicate a non-existent right.  \u201cAt no point in the [Miranda<\/em>] opinion did the Court state that a violation of its new rules constituted a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.\u201d[11]<\/a>  Miranda <\/em>was not itself a right, but rather, a set of \u201crules\u201d designed to \u201csafeguard\u2019 other rights during interrogation.[12]<\/a>  While a confession obtained without Miranda<\/em> warnings could be suppressed at a criminal trial (an evidentiary remedy recognized by Miranda <\/em>and its progeny), a person could not also sue for money damages because, simply put, there is no \u201cright\u201d to Miranda<\/em> in the Constitution to create a Section 1983 cause of action.  In other words, violating a \u201cconstitutional rule\u201d was not akin to violating a \u201cright\u201d because the Fifth Amendment says nothing about a right to receive Miranda <\/em>warnings.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Vega<\/em> is not itself transformative \u2013 after all, the Fifth Amendment does not actually state that one has a right to receive Miranda<\/em> warnings \u2013 the path the Court took to arrive at that conclusion provides some indication about how the Court views its role and its own power.  For instance, Vega<\/em> suggests that the Court is skeptical about the bounds of government action and its limited authority, even if the action at issue has become commonplace and routine.  Last term, the Court decided AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission<\/em>, which struck down the Federal Trade Commission\u2019s (\u201cFTC\u201d) practice of seeking monetary relief in certain circumstances \u2013 an established FTC practice that, as many observed, had become the \u201cnorm.\u201d  The Court, however, found such action exceeded statutory authority and struck down a practice even though it became commonplace.[13]<\/a>  Recently, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em>, the Court overruled precedent recognizing a right to abortion despite the country adapting to that right for decades.[14]<\/a>  And with respect to Miranda<\/em>, Justice Alito questioned whether the Court had the authority to issue Miranda<\/em> in the first place:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether this Court has the authority to create constitutionally based prophylactic rules that bind both federal and state courts has been the subject of debate among jurists and commentators. . . . But that is what the Court did in Miranda<\/em>, and we do not disturb that decision in any way. Rather, we accept it on its own terms, and for the purpose of deciding this case, we follow its rationale.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s second-guessing of its own authority, together with restricting that authority and the authority of other branches of government unless a statute or the Constitution clearly allows it, is an emerging theme that may very well guide future cases before the current Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, there is the issue of stare decisis<\/em> and when, if ever, precedent should be overruled.  Stare decisis<\/em> is the idea that \u201ctoday\u2019s Court should stand by yesterday\u2019s decisions\u201d because respecting precedent is a \u201cfoundation stone of the rule of law.\u201d[16]<\/a>  The doctrine arose out of the Framers of the Constitution itself \u2013 it is a doctrine that \u201cpermits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals, and thereby contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government, both in appearance and in fact.\u201d[17]<\/a>  Stare decisis<\/em> does not mean that prior cases can never be overturned.  The doctrine permits that practice, but in so doing, reserves such a drastic change for the rarest of cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recent developments suggest that the Court\u2019s disagreement with prior case law could place well-settled understandings of law in question.  Justice Alito, for example, questioned the Court\u2019s authority to issue Miranda<\/em>, which had become part of the \u201cnational culture,\u201d in a footnote (quoted above), even though that question was likely not directly related to the question before the Court or dispositive of any legal issue, thereby raising questions about whether the Court would reconsider Miranda<\/em> itself in a future case.[18]<\/a>  The Court\u2019s recent decision in Dobbs<\/em>, which recognized how abortion had become part of American life for nearly five decades, also signaled the Court\u2019s willingness to discard established precedent because, in the Court\u2019s view, the prior decision was \u201cwrong.\u201d[19]<\/a>  If stare decisis<\/em> is the bedrock of our legal system and a closely guarded foundation of the rule of law, the current Court may be poised to expand upon when and in what cases future jurists can use their disagreement with prior cases to disturb settled precedent \u2013 which, as a consequence, could open up large swaths of cases to reexamination when they were once thought to be untouchable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue before the Court in Vega<\/em> was narrow, and the Court\u2019s decision was undoubtedly a win for government officials.  But placing Vega<\/em> in context and considering the direction of the Court could mean that Vega<\/em>, as in other cases over the past two terms, is another iteration of a Court that will not hesitate to check the government\u2019s (including its own) authority, even if doing so means overruling decades of precedent that, at least for the current generation, has always been the law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Dickerson v. United States<\/em>, 530 U.S. 428, 443 (2000).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Miranda v. Arizona<\/em>, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> See id.<\/em> at 443\u201344 (\u201cWhether or not we would agree with Miranda<\/em>\u2019s reasoning and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue in the first instance, the principles of stare decisis <\/em>weigh heavily against overruling it now . . . .\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> 42 U.S.C. 1983<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> See Monroe v. Pape<\/em>, 365 U.S. 167, 173\u201380 (1961) (\u201cIt is abundantly clear that one reason the legislation was passed was to afford a federal right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance or otherwise, state laws might not be enforced and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment might be denied by the state agencies.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Goss v. Lopez<\/em>, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 729 (1975)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> See Coley v. Lucas Cnty.<\/em>, 799 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2015).  The plaintiffs later accepted an offer of judgment and received an award of over $1.2 million.  See Coley v. Lucas Cnty.<\/em>, Case No. 3:09-CV-00008 (S.D. Ohio), Doc. No. 192.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Ray v. McCloud<\/em>, 507 F. Supp. 3d 925, 928 (S.D. Ohio 2020); see also <\/em>J. Burns & S. Brinker, \u201cFederal Judge Confirms Transgender Ohio Residents Are Entitled to Accurate Birth Certificates,\u201d available at https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/justin-m-burns\/publications\/federal-judge-confirms-transgender-ohio-residents-are-entitled-to-accurate-birth-certificates\/ (last accessed July 11, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Wyatt v. Cole<\/em>, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> See generally<\/em>, Brief of Amici Curiae Historians of Criminal Procedure, Vega v. Tekoh<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Vega v. Tekoh<\/em>, ___ U.S. ____, 29 Fla. F. Weekly Fed. S. 421 (2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> AMG Capital Mgt., LLC v. FTC<\/em>, ___ U.S. ____, 141 S. Ct. 1341 (2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em>, ___ U.S. ___ 2022), 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3057, at *22 (2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Vega<\/em>, __ S.Ct. at fn. 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC<\/em>, 576 U.S. 446, 455 (2015) (quotation omitted).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Ramos v. Louisiana<\/em>, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1411 (2020) (quotation omitted).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Dickerson<\/em>, 530 U.S. at 443.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em>, ___ U.S. ___ 2022), 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3057, at *22 (2022).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

You have the right to remain silent and to an attorney, and what you say can be used against you in a court of law.  From Sergeant Joe Friday on \u201cDragnet\u201d to Lennie Briscoe on \u201cLaw & Order,\u201d millions of television viewers have been Mirandized by these all-too-familiar warnings such that they have become as\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"tags":[],"publication-type":[8],"class_list":["post-5615","publications","type-publications","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","publication-type-articles"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nWarning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All - Dinsmore & Shohl<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Dinsmore & Shohl\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-01T19:55:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Miranda-Rights_Header.jpg?w=1024\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/\",\"name\":\"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All - Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Miranda-Rights_Header.jpg?w=1024\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-07-15T19:54:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-01T19:55:36+00:00\",\"description\":\"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Miranda-Rights_Header.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Miranda-Rights_Header.jpg\",\"width\":2084,\"height\":751},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg\",\"width\":413,\"height\":54,\"caption\":\"Dinsmore & Shohl\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All - Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All","og_description":"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/","og_site_name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","article_modified_time":"2025-10-01T19:55:36+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Miranda-Rights_Header.jpg?w=1024","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/","name":"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All - Dinsmore & Shohl","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Miranda-Rights_Header.jpg?w=1024","datePublished":"2022-07-15T19:54:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-01T19:55:36+00:00","description":"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All Read insights and legal analysis from attorneys at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Miranda-Rights_Header.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Miranda-Rights_Header.jpg","width":2084,"height":751},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/publications\/warning-you-of-your-right-to-remain-silent-is-not-a-right-after-all\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Warning You of Your Right to Remain Silent is Not a Right After All"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#organization","name":"Dinsmore & Shohl","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Dinsmore-Final-Logo-Navy.svg","width":413,"height":54,"caption":"Dinsmore & Shohl"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/5615","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publications"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/5615\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5622,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publications\/5615\/revisions\/5622"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5615"},{"taxonomy":"publication-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dinsmore.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-type?post=5615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}