Miranda Warning

The Miranda warning came about as a result of the decision of the United States Supreme court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department for a rape that had occurred ten days earlier. Miranda signed a form indicating that he understood all of his rights, and then confessed to the crime. The court found that is was unlikely that Miranda actually knew he had a right not to talk to police, and reversed his conviction. Miranda was re-tried on evidence that did not include the confession, and was found guilty. After being released from prison, he was stabbed to death in a fight in a Tuscon bar.

The Miranda decision imposed a requirement that persons who were being asked questions that could incriminate them and who were not free to leave police custody be formally advised of their right not to answer questions and to have the assistance of legal counsel (an attorney) during questioning. If a custodial interrogation takes place without the Miranda warning and a waiver of those rights, information from the interrogation is inadmissible at trial.

There are numerous exceptions to the Miranda rule. Also, there is no requirement to advise someone of their rights per Miranda if they are not being questioned in a custodial setting.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

Summary

Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) dealt with the need for individuals in police custody to understand their constitutional rights before being questioned by police. The specific protections addressed are the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, and the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. The "fundamentals of fairness" standard, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, demands that the accused be aware of his (or her) options in dealing with police so he can make informed decisions and not unwittingly act against his best interest.

Explanation

In each of the cases, a defendant who was not "free to leave" police custody was interrogated by "police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney" without being advised that he had the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions, that any statements made could be used against him at trial, and that he had the Sixth Amendment right to consult with an attorney at any time during the interrogation, even if he had already made voluntary statements or answered questions.

In the named case, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault in March 1963. He was taken to the police station, where he was identified by the victim, then forced to stand, handcuffed, in a room for several hours while interrogated by detectives. Miranda finally confessed to the crime, and signed a statement that included a typed disclaimer stating he had "full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me," and had voluntarily waived those rights. Miranda did not receive benefit of an attorney during questioning, nor at the preliminary hearing, and was not aware he had the right to consult with an attorney during those phases of the criminal process.

Miranda's statements were admitted in court over the objection of his attorney. He was subsequently convicted on charges of kidnapping and rape, and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

On appeal, Miranda's lawyer argued the defendant had been deprived of his constitutional rights, making the confession illegally obtained. He believed Miranda's conviction should be vacated on those grounds.

The state of Arizona argued that Miranda had a long police record and was aware of the procedures used to obtain his confession. They further argued he had demonstrated intelligence in skillfully negotiating with police, and had signed the confession willingly. The prosecution had been proper under Arizona law; if the verdict was thrown out, it would set a precedent that would hamper future police investigations.

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling, allowing Miranda's conviction to stand. Miranda's attorney petitioned the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted for the 1965-1966 Term.

Supreme Court Decision

The Warren Court had previously ruled, in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 (1964), when a police investigation is no longer a general inquiry about an unsolved crime, but focuses on a specific suspect, a defendant cannot be denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel.

The Escobedo decision, in combination with Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963) and Mapp v. Ohio, (1961) had established a "fundamentals of fairness" standard designed to protect the constitutional rights of the accused. In Escobedo, the Court held the defendant had the right to counsel as soon as he or she was identified as a suspect in a criminal investigation. The Miranda ruling lowered the threshold for determining when an individual could invoke constitutional protection using the "right to leave" test, which includes any time the person no longer had the freedom to voluntarily remove himself from police custody.

In a narrow 5-4 vote, the Court ruled to reverse Miranda's conviction on the basis that he had not been correctly informed of his constitutional rights. The typed waiver at the bottom of the statement was held to be insufficient to constitute a valid waiver of rights. Failure to ensure the suspect understood his constitutional rights was a violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.

Chief Justice Warren clearly stated the rules governing custodial interrogation in the opinion of the Court:

"In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."

Miranda's conviction was reversed, and the case remanded to the trial court for rehearing, with the signed confession to be excluded as evidence.

After the Decision

On retrial, Miranda was again convicted, this time on the victim's statement and other circumstantial evidence, and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

Miranda was released on parole in 1972, and stabbed to death in a barroom brawl in 1976.

Miranda Warning

The Court's decision permanently changed law enforcement procedures, such that people taken into police custody must be formally advised of their rights before questioning. Each state is free to determine the exact wording of their "Miranda Warning," provided the elements stipulated in the Supreme Court decision are clearly included.

Update

The Miranda ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for Berghuis v. Thompkins,08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must invoke his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than waive it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation).

Examples

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."

Some jurisdictions use more elaborate warnings, designed to prevent confessions from being excluded in court:

"You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?

Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?"

Other variations are also used.