What constitutional issues were addressed in Miranda v. Arizona?

Answer 1

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

The decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966) clearly defined due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. It established the doctrine that a criminal suspect in police custody must be informed of certain constitutional rights before being interrogated:

• the right to remain silent
• the right to have an attorney present during questioning
• the right to have an attorney appointed if the suspect cannot afford one

Answer 2

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

Question before the Supreme Court:

"Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?"

In a 5-4 vote, the Warren Court held:

"The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination."

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).

For more information, see Related Questions, below.