Miranda v. Arizona

16 L. Ed. 2d 694 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1966

Facts

In four consolidated cases, defendants were subjected to custodial police interrogation without being fully advised of their Fifth Amendment rights, leading to self-incriminating statements or confessions that were admitted as evidence at trial. The interrogations occurred in police-dominated environments, often incommunicado.

Issue

Does the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination require law enforcement to provide specific warnings to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation before their statements can be admitted as evidence?

Holding

Yes, the Court reversed convictions where confessions were obtained without proper warnings and affirmed the reversal where warnings were not given, ruling that statements obtained from custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless procedural safeguards are demonstrated.

Rule

Before custodial interrogation, suspects must be warned of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, and their right to an attorney (retained or appointed). These rights can be waived only if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, and interrogation must cease if the suspect invokes these rights.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-01-28. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.