Miranda v. Arizona
Citation: 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Facts
Ernesto Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation with no attorney present, he signed a written confession. The signed form stated the confession was made voluntarily, but Miranda was not informed of his right to remain silent or to have an attorney present. The confession was admitted at trial and he was convicted.
Issue
Whether statements obtained from a defendant during a custodial interrogation, without prior notification of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, can be admitted at trial without violating the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires that, before custodial interrogation, police must inform suspects of their rights to remain silent, that anything said can be used against them, that they have the right to an attorney, and that one will be appointed if they cannot afford one.
Rule
Before a custodial interrogation, law enforcement must administer the four Miranda warnings. Any statement obtained in violation of this requirement is inadmissible. A suspect may waive these rights, but the waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Significance
Miranda is one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions in American law and fundamentally changed police interrogation practices nationwide. It is central to understanding Fifth Amendment protections, the relationship between rights and their procedural safeguards, and ongoing controversies about the impact of Miranda on law enforcement efficacy.