Miranda v. Arizona

E8268

United States Supreme Court case constitutional law case criminal procedure case landmark decision

Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.

Aliases (6)

Miranda rights ×3
Miranda v. Arizona decision ×1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ×1
Miranda warning ×1
Miranda warnings ×1
Miranda warnings doctrine ×1

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case → constitutional law case → criminal procedure case → landmark decision →
appliesTo	custodial interrogation → police questioning of suspects in custody →
areaOfLaw	constitutional criminal procedure → criminal procedure →
citation	384 U.S. 436 →
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment → U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment → U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment →
court	Supreme Court of the United States →
createdDoctrine	Miranda rights → Miranda warnings →
decisionDate	1966-06-13 →
effect	Established nationwide requirement for Miranda warnings by law enforcement → Made unwarned custodial statements generally inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief →
fullName	Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) →
geographicScope	all U.S. states and territories →
holding	If a suspect indicates in any manner that they wish to remain silent, interrogation must cease. → If a suspect requests an attorney, interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. → Prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless procedural safeguards are used to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. → Suspects in custody must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney before interrogation. →
jurisdiction	United States →
legalIssue	Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination → Sixth Amendment right to counsel → admissibility of custodial confessions →
majorityOpinionBy	Chief Justice Earl Warren →
majorityVote	5-4 →
namedAfter	Ernesto Miranda →
overruledBy	none →
petitioner	Ernesto Arturo Miranda →
relatedCase	Dickerson v. United States → Escobedo v. Illinois →
requiredWarning	Anything said can and will be used against the suspect in court → If the suspect cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed before questioning if desired → Right to consult with an attorney and to have the attorney present during questioning → Right to remain silent →
requires	voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of rights before questioning →
respondent	State of Arizona →
standardOfWaiver	knowing and intelligent → voluntary →
stateOfOrigin	Arizona →
status	good law as of 2024 →
subjectMatter	police interrogation practices → rights of criminal suspects →
yearDecided	1966 →

Referenced by (16)

Subject (surface form when different)	Predicate
Ernesto Arturo Miranda ("Miranda warning") → Ernesto Arturo Miranda ("Miranda rights") →	associatedLegalDoctrine
Miranda v. Arizona ("Miranda warnings") → Miranda v. Arizona ("Miranda rights") →	createdDoctrine
Dickerson v. United States → Escobedo v. Illinois →	relatedCase
Miranda v. Arizona ("Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)") →	fullName
Ernesto Arturo Miranda →	hasLegalCase
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court →	hasNotableCase
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution →	influencedDecision
Due Process Clause →	interpretedInCase
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution →	keyCase
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ("Miranda rights") →	legalConcept
American Civil Liberties Union →	notableCase
Earl Warren ("Miranda v. Arizona decision") →	notableWork
Escobedo v. Illinois ("Miranda warnings doctrine") →	precedentFor