U.S.

Supreme Court
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Miranda v. Arizona

No. 759

Argued February 28-March 1, 1966

Decided June 13, 1966*

384 U.S. 436

Syllabus

The Miranda v. Arizona case is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that significantly
impacted criminal procedure and the rights of individuals during police interrogations.
1. Background and Facts:
o Ernesto Miranda, an immigrant, was arrested for kidnapping and rape.
o During his interrogation, the officers did not inform him of his rights under the Fifth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
o Despite this, Miranda signed a confession after two hours of investigation, which included a
statement that he was aware of his rights1.
o The case also involved three other defendants: Michael Vignera, Carl Calvin Westover,
and Roy Allen Stewart, each facing different charges.
o None of these defendants were properly informed of their constitutional rights during their
interrogations.
2. Issue:
o The central question was whether the government is required to notify arrested defendants of
their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights (such as the right to remain silent, the right to
counsel, etc.) before interrogating them.
3. Holding:
o The Supreme Court held that government authorities must inform individuals of their Fifth
Amendment constitutional rights before conducting an interrogation following an arrest.
o Specifically, these rights include:
 The right to remain silent.
 An explanation that anything they say could be used against them in court.
 The right to counsel.
 The right to have counsel appointed if necessary.
o Without this notification, any admissions made by an arrestee during an interrogation would
not be admissible in court1.
4. Significance:
o The Miranda warning (or Miranda rights) has become a standard practice in law
enforcement.
o It ensures that individuals are aware of their rights and can make informed decisions during
questioning.
 o Failure to provide the Miranda warning can lead to the exclusion of evidence obtained during
an interrogation.
5. Legacy:
o The Miranda decision has had a lasting impact on criminal justice and constitutional law.
o It emphasizes the importance of protecting individual rights, even in the context of criminal
investigations.

Held:

1. 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. Pp. 384 U. S. 444-
491.

(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today

is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-
incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion
inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly
be the product of his free choice. Pp. 384 U. S. 445-458.

(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive
historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and
guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in
the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation chanrobles.com-red

Page 384 U. S. 437

as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 384 U.
S. 458-465.

(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, stressed the need for protective
devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the
privilege. Pp. 384 U. S. 465-466.

(d) 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.
Pp. 384 U. S. 467-473.

(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain
silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the
questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Pp. 384 U. S. 473-474.
(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a
statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the
defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. P. 384 U. S. 475.

(g) Where the individual answers some questions during in-custody interrogation, he
has not waived his privilege, and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter.
Pp. 384 U. S. 475-476.

(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective
equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or
exculpatory, made by a defendant. Pp. 384 U. S. 476-477.

2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the
individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper
system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the
safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions. Pp. 384 U. S. 479-491.

3. In each of these cases, the statements were obtained under circumstances that did
not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-
incrimination. Pp. 384 U. S. 491-499.

98 Ariz. 18, 401 P.2d 721; 15 N.Y.2d 970, 207 N.E.2d 527; 16 N.Y.2d 614, 209 N.E.2d
110; 342 F.2d 684, reversed; 62 Cal.2d 571, 400 P.2d 97, affirmed. chanrobles.com-red

Page 384 U. S. 439