Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

This case set the rule that police must give clear warnings before questioning a person in custody. These warnings include the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. Without these warnings and a valid waiver, statements from such questioning cannot be used in court.

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Citation: 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
• Area: Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law

Must police inform an arrested person of the Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and the right to counsel before custodial interrogation?

• Before questioning a suspect in custody, police must state:
  • the right to remain silent,
  • that anything said can be used in court,
  • the right to a lawyer, and
  • the right to a free lawyer if needed.
• Any waiver must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

The Supreme Court held that police must give clear warnings before custodial interrogation. Statements from such questioning are admissible only if the suspect was informed of the rights and then chose to speak with a valid waiver.

Miranda’s conviction was set aside and the case was sent back for a new trial.

Custodial interrogation is inherently coercive. Procedural safeguards—Miranda warnings—are required to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege. Without these safeguards and a valid waiver, statements are generally inadmissible.

• Gave every suspect a practical way to use the right to silence and counsel.
• Created a clear script for police, reducing disputes over voluntariness.
• Became a global reference point for fair interrogation practices.

• Warnings are required before custodial questioning.
• Valid waiver must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
• Unwarned custodial statements are usually excluded.

Mnemonic: SAY-USE-LAW-LAW

• SAY = Right to say nothing (remain silent)
• USE = Words can be used in court
• LAW = Right to a lawyer
• LAW = Lawyer provided if you cannot afford one

3-Step Hook:

1. Check setting: Is the person in custody?
2. Check script: Were all four warnings given?
3. Check waiver: Was the waiver valid?

Issue: Do police need to give Fifth Amendment warnings before custodial interrogation?

Rule: Yes. The suspect must be told the right to remain silent, that statements may be used, the right to counsel, and appointed counsel if needed.

Application: Miranda’s confession followed custodial questioning without warnings. His waiver cannot be treated as informed.

Conclusion: The confession is inadmissible; conviction reversed and case remanded.

Custodial Interrogation

Questioning by police while a person is in custody or not free to leave.

Self-Incrimination

Saying something that can be used to prove your own guilt.

Waiver

A clear choice to give up a right, made knowingly and voluntarily.

• Escobedo v. Illinois — right to counsel during interrogation.
• Edwards v. Arizona — once counsel is requested, police must stop questioning.
• Berkemer v. McCarty — traffic stops and custody analysis.