Also known as:Miranda decision · Miranda ruling · Miranda · Miranda rights case
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional rule requiring police to inform a suspect in custody of the right to remain silent, that any statement may be used against the suspect, and of the right to counsel before beginning interrogation. The rule protects the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination by dispelling the inherent coercion of custodial questioning. Failure to give the warnings renders any resulting statements inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Reinitiated Questioning After Counsel Request
Maurice Marshall was arrested and read Miranda warnings. He immediately said he wanted a lawyer. Officers stopped questioning and took him to a holding facility. Hours later an investigator from another state office brought Marshall to a conference room and resumed questioning about the same matter without providing counsel. Marshall confessed. The confession is inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief because officers reinitiated custodial interrogation after a clear request for counsel.
Custodial Interrogation Without Warnings
Monica Morgan was handcuffed at her desk and taken to the station. Detectives questioned her about a data breach for two hours without giving any warnings. Morgan made incriminating statements. Those statements are inadmissible because the questioning occurred while she was in custody and the officers failed to administer the required warnings beforehand.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Miranda v. Arizona384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Blood Draw After Arrest
Marcus Mitchell was arrested for driving under the influence. Officers directed a doctor to draw his blood over his objection. The blood test results are admissible because the privilege against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial communications and does not bar physical evidence obtained without interrogation.
Schmerber v. California384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Statement After Valid Waiver
Mariam Mansour was arrested for murder. Officers read her the warnings and she signed a written waiver. She then gave a detailed confession. The confession is admissible because the warnings were given and Mansour made a knowing and voluntary waiver before any questioning began.
Conversation With Informant
Marco Marquez spoke with a government informant who was wearing a hidden recorder. Marquez made incriminating statements without receiving warnings. The statements are admissible because the encounter was not custodial interrogation by law enforcement officers.
United States v. White401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971)
Voluntary Statement Outside Custody
Ming Ma approached officers on the street and admitted involvement in a shooting. No warnings were given. The statement is admissible because Ma was not in custody and the officers did not interrogate her.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What must police do once a suspect in custody clearly requests counsel?+
All interrogation must cease. Officers may not reinitiate questioning about any offense until counsel is provided or the suspect initiates further communication and validly waives the right.
Does the Miranda right to counsel apply only to the offense for which the suspect was arrested?+
No. Once invoked during custodial interrogation the right bars reinitiation of questioning about any offense while the suspect remains in custody without counsel.
Can post-warning silence be used against a defendant at trial?+
No. Once warnings are given the government may not use the defendant's subsequent silence as substantive evidence of guilt or to rebut a defense such as insanity.
When may officers resume questioning after a suspect invokes the right to remain silent?+
Officers may resume if they scrupulously honored the invocation by immediately stopping, allowing a significant time break, giving fresh warnings, and limiting new questioning to a different offense.
384 U.S. 436 (1966)Evidence
Miranda v. Arizona <!-- acedexams opinion md v1 -- Case information - Court: Supreme Court of the United States - Citation: 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) - Decided:…