Also known as: Miranda requirement · Miranda warnings · Miranda rule · Miranda rights
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The procedural safeguards that law enforcement must provide to a suspect before conducting custodial interrogation. These safeguards inform the suspect of the right to remain silent, that any statement may be used against the suspect in court, and of the right to the presence of an attorney. The warnings must convey the substance of these rights even if not recited verbatim.
Officer Patel pulls over driver Monica Morgan for a broken taillight during a routine traffic stop. While Morgan remains in her vehicle, Patel asks whether she has been drinking. Morgan answers that she had one beer. Because the stop is temporary and brief, the exchange does not trigger Miranda requirements and Morgan's answer is admissible without prior warnings.
Detectives question suspect Mohan Malhotra at the station after arresting him for theft. They advise him that they have no way of giving him a lawyer but one will be appointed if and when he goes to court, and that anything he says can be used against him. Malhotra then confesses. The warnings convey the substance of the required rights, so Miranda requirements are satisfied and the confession is admissible.
Police arrest Megan Moore for assault and give her proper Miranda warnings. Moore waives her rights and confesses. Unknown to Moore, her retained attorney has been trying to reach her and has asked officers to stop questioning. Because formal proceedings have not begun and the waiver is otherwise knowing and voluntary, Miranda requirements are met and the confession is admissible.
On the evening of June 29, 1977, Brian Burbine was arrested by Cranston, Rhode Island, police officers in connection with a local burglary after Detective Ferranti received information from a confidential informant linking a man known as "Butch" living at a specific address to an earlier murder. Burbine, who lived at that address and was known by that name, was taken to the Cranston police station where Cranston detectives advised him of his Miranda rights; he initially refused to sign a written waiver form. At approximately 7:45 p.m. that same evening, Burbine's sister telephoned the Public Defender's Office in Providence to request legal assistance for her brother on the breaking-and-entering charge. Attorney Allegra Munson from that office telephoned the Cranston police station at 8:15 p.m., identified herself as Burbine's counsel, and was told by an officer that the police would not be questioning Burbine or placing him in a lineup and that they were through with him for the night. Munson was not informed that Providence police were present or that Burbine was a suspect in the murder of Mary Jo Hickey. Less than an hour later, three Providence detectives arrived at the Cranston station and began questioning Burbine about the murder. Prior to each of three interview sessions, Burbine was advised of his Miranda rights, and on three separate occasions he signed written forms acknowledging that he understood his rights and expressly waiving them; he then provided three written statements admitting responsibility for the murder. At no time during the questioning was Burbine informed that his sister had retained an attorney for him or that Attorney Munson had telephoned the station. Prior to trial in Rhode Island Superior Court, Burbine moved to suppress the statements. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Burbine had been fully advised of his Miranda rights, had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived them, and that the statements were voluntary. Burbine was convicted of first-degree murder. The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the conviction, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation. Custody exists when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. Interrogation includes express questioning or its functional equivalent. Routine traffic stops are ordinarily noncustodial, so warnings are not required during ordinary roadside questioning.
Supporting sources
…the failure of the police to inform the defendant of the attorney's request [to see him] vitiated the defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights"); Weber v. State , 457 A. 2d 674, 685 (Del. 1983) ("When a suspect does not know that an attorney, who has been retained or properly designated to represent him, is actually present in…
…and the videotape taken at the booking center "because they were incriminating and completed prior to [Muniz's] receiving his Miranda warnings." App. to Pet. for Cert. C-5 — C-6. The trial court denied the motion, holding that " requesting a driver, suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, to perform physical tests or…
…cards. As Justice Linde has noted: " People do not claim rights against self-incrimination, they "take the fifth" and expect "Miranda warnings
…and [other officers] . . . met with Thomas at the sheriff’s office in the processing room. Wells advised Thomas of his Miranda rights . . . . [T]here is no argument as to the voluntariness of [Thomas’] statement. Wells asked Thomas, “How many bags of heroin do you use a day?” Thomas replied, “About 12.” Wells asked…
No. Warnings need not be given in a rigid, verbatim form. It is sufficient if the warnings convey the substance of the required rights, even when phrased in language such as stating that the police have no way of giving a lawyer but one will be appointed if and when the suspect goes to court.
Supporting sources
No. A suspect's voluntary confession given after proper Miranda warnings remains admissible even if police mislead the suspect's lawyer about plans to interrogate or fail to inform the suspect that the lawyer is trying to reach the suspect, provided formal adversary proceedings have not begun and the waiver is otherwise knowing and voluntary.
Supporting sources
An ambiguous or equivocal statement such as 'Maybe I really should have a lawyer' does not invoke the Miranda right to counsel. Officers may continue questioning when the suspect fails to articulate the desire for counsel with sufficient clarity that a reasonable officer would understand it as a request to stop.
Supporting sources