Judicial branch · Landmark case
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) · Opinion of the Court
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language.
The controlling document is the Court’s opinion. The required warnings have become a fixed feature of American policing.
The Court held that the prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Prior to questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.
Background
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and interrogated by Phoenix police; he signed a confession that was admitted at trial. Similar cases from other states were consolidated. The Court surveyed interrogation practices and concluded that the atmosphere of custodial questioning required concrete warnings to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege.
Miranda created the familiar warning regime used in every American jurisdiction.
Although later cases have narrowed some applications and Congress attempted a statutory override (upheld only in limited form), the core requirement of warnings before custodial interrogation remains binding constitutional law. The case is a defining example of the Warren Court’s criminal-procedure revolution.
Vote and authorship
| Majority | Warren, C.J. |
|---|---|
| Join | Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas |
| Dissent | Harlan, J. (joined by Stewart, White); White, J. (joined by Harlan, Stewart); Clark, J. |
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.
Chief Justice Warren · Miranda v. Arizona
How it fits in government
Judicial branch
Constitutional regulation of police interrogation practices.
Fifth Amendment
Privilege against self-incrimination applied in the station house.
State & local government
Requires local law enforcement to administer warnings and honor invocations of rights.
Official records visitors may need
Related research paths
Gideon v. Wainwright
Companion fair-trial right to counsel
Fifth Amendment
Self-incrimination privilege
Criminal procedure
Broader Warren Court reforms