Also known as: Miranda warnings · Miranda rights · Miranda admonition
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A series of warnings that law enforcement officers must give to a suspect in custody before beginning interrogation. The warnings inform the suspect of the right to remain silent, that any statement can be used against the suspect in court, and of the right to an attorney including appointment of counsel if the suspect cannot afford one.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A state trooper pulled over Maya Malik for speeding on the highway. The officer asked Maya how fast she had been driving and whether she had been drinking. Maya answered the questions without receiving any warnings. At trial the prosecution sought to introduce her answers. Because the stop was brief and noncustodial, the answers were admissible even though no Miranda warning had been given.
Detectives arrested Miles Montgomery at his home and read him a set of rights that stated officers had no way of providing a lawyer immediately but one would be appointed when he went to court. Miles then made incriminating statements. The statements were admissible because the warnings conveyed the substance of the required rights even though they were not recited verbatim.
After officers arrested Marco Marquez and read him Miranda warnings, Marco remained completely silent during questioning. At trial the prosecutor sought to use Marco's silence to impeach his exculpatory testimony. The appellate court reversed because use of post-warning silence for impeachment violated due process.
Police arrested Melanie Morris and gave her Miranda warnings. Her lawyer repeatedly tried to reach her but officers did not inform Melanie of the lawyer's efforts. Melanie waived her rights and confessed. The confession was admissible because formal adversary proceedings had not begun and the waiver was otherwise knowing and voluntary.
Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation. Routine traffic stops are ordinarily noncustodial because they are temporary and brief, so warnings are not required during ordinary roadside questioning even though the stop involves some restraint.
Supporting sources
No. Warnings need not be given in a rigid verbatim form. Any phrasing that conveys the substance of the required rights is sufficient, including statements that a lawyer will be appointed when the suspect goes to court.
…only question presented by the petition for certiorari reads as follows: “Whether law enforcement officers must give ‘Miranda warnings’ to individuals arrested for misdemeanor traffic offenses.” In Parts I, II, and IV of its opinion, the Court answers that question in the affirmative and explains why that answer requires…
…At Wood's trial, the arresting officer described the warning he gave petitioners: "I told Mr. Wood and Mr. Doyle of the Miranda warning
…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
…There were two occasions referenced at trial: an October 7 interview at Andrew High School where Officer Houlihan, after reading Miranda warnings
Supporting sources
No. Once officers give Miranda warnings, due process bars the prosecution from using the defendant's subsequent silence to impeach exculpatory testimony or suggest consciousness of guilt. The warnings carry an implicit assurance that silence will not be penalized.
Supporting sources
Once a suspect in custody clearly invokes the right to counsel, all interrogation must cease. Police may not reinitiate questioning about any offense unless counsel is provided or the suspect reinitiates communication and validly waives the right.
Supporting sources
No. An ambiguous or equivocal reference to counsel, such as saying maybe a lawyer should be present, does not require officers to cease questioning. Only an unambiguous request triggers the Edwards rule.
Supporting sources