Summary
In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that statements from custodial interrogation generally cannot be used unless law enforcement first provides warnings protecting the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel, and any waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Legal Issue
May prosecutors use statements from custodial interrogation unless law enforcement first provides safeguards protecting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel during questioning?
Holding
No. Before custodial interrogation, law enforcement must clearly advise a person of the right to remain silent, that statements can be used in court, and the right to consult with and have counsel present, appointed if necessary. Any waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. If the person invokes silence or counsel, questioning must stop as required.
Rule of Law
When police have someone in custody and want to interrogate them, they generally need to give Miranda warnings first if prosecutors later want to use the person’s answers in court.
Court Reasoning
Not yet summarized.
Impact for Officers
Miranda remains central to criminal investigations, training, suppression motions, and courtroom disputes over custody, interrogation, waiver, and invocation of rights.
What Officers Can Do
Not yet summarized.
What Officers Should Avoid
Not yet summarized.
Common Misunderstanding
Not yet summarized.