In 1963, Phoenix police arrested Ernesto Miranda for kidnapping and rape. Officers interrogated him for two hours without telling him he could remain silent or have a lawyer present. Miranda confessed and was convicted. Three years later, the Supreme Court threw out that confession in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), ruling 5-4 that police must inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights before custodial interrogation: the right to remain silent, the warning that anything said can be used against them, the right to an attorney, and the right to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one.
Those four warnings -- now recited millions of times a year during arrests -- remain the law. But the Supreme Court has chipped away at their force. In 2022, the Court ruled 6-3 in Vega v. Tekoh that Miranda warnings are a "prophylactic rule," not a constitutional right in themselves. That means if an officer skips the warnings and extracts a confession, the statement still cannot be used at trial -- but the suspect cannot sue the officer for violating their civil rights under Section 1983. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority; Justice Elena Kagan dissented, warning the ruling removed a key deterrent against police misconduct. The practical effect: officers face no personal liability for Miranda violations, only the risk that a court will throw out the evidence.