Also known as:Miranda warning · Miranda rights · Miranda rule · Miranda
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A set of advisements that law enforcement officers must provide to a suspect in custody before conducting interrogation. The advisements inform the suspect of the right to remain silent, that any statement may be used against the suspect in court, the right to the presence of an attorney, and the right to appointed counsel if the suspect cannot afford one.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Reinitiation After Counsel Request
Daniel, a clerk at the State Licensing Bureau, was arrested and read Miranda warnings. He immediately said he wanted a lawyer. Questioning stopped and he was taken to a holding facility. Hours later an investigator from another state office summoned him to a conference room without providing counsel and questioned him about the permit scheme until he confessed. The confession must be suppressed because the investigator reinitiated custodial interrogation after a clear invocation of the right to counsel.
Custodial Interrogation Without Warnings
Melanie was summoned to a closed campus office by police and a dean. They questioned her for five hours about stolen exam answers without giving Miranda warnings. She confessed after threats that her degree and visa would be lost. The statements must be suppressed because the questioning was custodial interrogation conducted without the required warnings.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Dictionaries
Miranda v. Arizona384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Statements to Undercover Informant
Walter was in custody on fraud charges. An informant wearing a wire met him in jail and elicited statements about the scheme. No Miranda warnings were given before the conversation. The statements are admissible because the informant was not a known law enforcement officer conducting custodial interrogation.
United States v. White401 U.S. 745, 91 S.Ct. 1122, 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971)
Immunity and Later Statements
A witness received immunity and testified before a grand jury. Later the government sought to use the testimony in a criminal prosecution. The statements are admissible because the immunity order removed the risk of self-incrimination that Miranda warnings address.
Kastigar v. United States406 U.S. 441 (1972)
Blood Draw After Arrest
A driver was arrested for DUI. Officers drew blood without giving Miranda warnings. The blood test results are admissible because the physical extraction did not constitute interrogation requiring the warnings.
Schmerber v. California384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Expert Testimony on Statements
A forensic expert testified about the meaning of a defendant's recorded statements made after Miranda warnings. The testimony is admissible because the warnings had been given and the statements were voluntary.
Williams v. Illinois567 U.S. 50 (2012)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What must officers do after a suspect in custody clearly requests counsel?+
Once a suspect in custody clearly invokes the Miranda right to 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.
Can post-warning silence be used against a defendant at trial?+
Once officers give Miranda warnings, the government may not use the defendant's subsequent silence as substantive evidence of guilt or to rebut a defense such as insanity. The warnings carry an implicit assurance that silence will carry no penalty.
When may police resume questioning after a suspect invokes the right to remain silent?+
After a suspect invokes the right to remain silent, later questioning is permissible only if officers scrupulously honor the invocation by immediately stopping, allowing a significant time gap, giving fresh warnings, and limiting the new interrogation to a different offense.
Are Miranda warnings required before grand jury testimony?+
Miranda warnings are not required for a witness testifying under subpoena before a grand jury. The witness has no right to counsel in the grand jury room and may be prosecuted for perjury based on false statements even without the warnings.
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) -…