Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, Supreme Court, 1966

Facts of the Case

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 on charges of kidnapping and rape. After being taken into custody and interrogated by police, Miranda confessed to the crimes. However, he was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney during the interrogation. His confession was used as evidence, and he was convicted. Miranda appealed, arguing that his confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.

Constitutional Question

Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect, and must the police inform suspects of their rights before questioning?

Arguments

For Miranda:

  • The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves, which includes the right to remain silent during police interrogation.
  • The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal counsel, which should be made known to suspects during custodial interrogation.
  • Confessions obtained without informing suspects of their rights are inherently coercive and should not be admissible in court.

For the State of Arizona:

  • The police followed standard procedures during the interrogation, and Miranda’s confession was voluntary.
  • The Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not require explicit warnings about the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.
  • The existing safeguards against coercion are sufficient without requiring additional procedural warnings.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Miranda. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination requires that suspects be informed of their rights before police interrogation. The Court established the “Miranda rights,” which include:

  1. The right to remain silent.
  2. The warning that anything said can be used against the suspect in court.
  3. The right to an attorney, either retained or appointed.

The Court ruled that any statements made by suspects during custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless they have been informed of their rights and have voluntarily waived them.

Significance

Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark case that significantly impacted law enforcement practices and the rights of individuals in custody. The decision established the “Miranda warning,” a set of procedural safeguards designed to protect suspects’ Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights during police interrogation. This ruling ensures that individuals are aware of their constitutional protections and can make informed decisions about cooperating with law enforcement. Miranda v. Arizona remains a cornerstone of criminal procedure, promoting fairness and protecting against coercive interrogation tactics in the American justice system.