384 U.S. 436 (1966) · 1966
Miranda v. Arizona
Fifth AmendmentCriminal ProcedurePolice InterrogationRight to CounselDue ProcessLandmark
Summary
Miranda v. Arizona required police to warn people in custodial interrogation that they have the right to remain silent, that their statements can be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney. The ruling created the Miranda warning framework used to protect Fifth Amendment rights during police questioning.
Background & Context
Miranda was one of four consolidated cases involving defendants who confessed during custodial interrogation without full warnings about silence and counsel. Ernesto Miranda's written confession had been admitted at trial after police questioned him in custody.
The Question Before the Court
What warnings and safeguards are required before the prosecution may use a suspect's statements from custodial police interrogation?
Petitioner
Ernesto Miranda
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- Miranda argued that in-custody questioning pressures suspects to speak unless they are clearly told about silence and counsel.
- He argued that statements should not be used unless police first protect the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.
Respondent
Arizona
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- Arizona argued that courts could decide confession admissibility case by case under existing voluntariness rules.
- The state argued that the Constitution did not require police to give a specific set of warnings before questioning.
The Holding
Before custodial interrogation, law enforcement must warn a suspect that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that statements can be used in court, that the suspect has the right to an attorney, and that an attorney will be appointed if the suspect cannot afford one. Statements from custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless the prosecution shows those safeguards were given and validly waived.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
5-4
Vote
Joined decision
5 justicesAF
Abe Fortas
Majority
EW
Earl Warren
Majority
HL
Hugo Black
Majority
WJ
William Jr.
Majority
WO
William Douglas
Majority
Dissented
4 justicesBR
Byron White
Dissent
JM
John II
Dissent
PS
Potter Stewart
Dissent
TC
Tom Clark
Dissent
What this means for you
Miranda changed everyday policing and criminal procedure. Police departments adopted standardized warnings, courts gained a clear rule for many confession disputes, and suspects were given a concrete way to understand and waive core interrogation rights.
Key Takeaways
- The case applies to custodial interrogation, not every interaction between police and the public.
- The required warnings protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
- A suspect may waive the rights, but the waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
- Statements obtained without the required safeguards are generally inadmissible in the prosecution's case.
- The decision turned a constitutional protection into a practical warning system used by police nationwide.
Decision
5-4 majority opinion
- Citation
- 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
- Vote
- 5-4
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- February 28, 1966
- Decided
- June 13, 1966
- Term
- 1965
- Opinion author
- Earl Warren
Chief Justice Warren wrote for a five-justice majority joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas. Justices Clark, Harlan, Stewart, and White dissented through separate opinions and joins.