Also known as: Miranda rights · right to remain silent · Miranda warning · Miranda rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional safeguard under the Fifth Amendment that permits a person subjected to custodial interrogation to decline to answer questions posed by law enforcement officers. The protection requires officers to convey the substance of the right before any questioning begins and to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver before proceeding. Statements taken in violation of the safeguard are inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Mariam Mansour was arrested on suspicion of insurance fraud and placed in a locked interview room. Officers questioned her for forty minutes about the origin of a fire at her rental property. She made incriminating statements that the prosecution later sought to introduce at trial.
Maurice Marshall confessed after agents continued questioning despite his clear statement that he wished to remain silent. The trial court admitted the confession on the theory that a federal statute displaced the constitutional rule. On appeal the court held the statute could not override the Fifth Amendment safeguard.
Mina Mehta made a statement after officers ignored her invocation of the right to remain silent. The statement led officers to a storage locker containing stolen molds. The court suppressed the statement but admitted the physical evidence because an independent inventory audit already underway would have discovered the locker anyway.
Marcus Mitchell was held in state custody and questioned without warnings about an arson investigation. He moved to suppress his resulting statements on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court applied the privilege against self-incrimination to the state proceeding and excluded the statements.
Mason McCarthy invoked his right to counsel during custodial interrogation. Officers ceased questioning but returned two days later without providing counsel and resumed the same subject. The court suppressed the later statements because the invocation had not been honored.
Marco Marquez walked into a police station and confessed to a crime. Officers gave no warnings because they did not consider him a suspect at the time. The court admitted the statement after finding that his mental condition alone did not render the confession involuntary under the Fifth Amendment.
Officers may resume questioning after a significant period of time, fresh warnings, and when the new session addresses a different crime, provided they scrupulously honored the initial invocation by stopping immediately. The scrupulous-honoring standard governs invocations of silence rather than the stricter Edwards rule that applies to counsel invocations.
Supporting sources
No. The warnings need only convey the substance of the rights in a manner a reasonable suspect can understand. An agent's statement that counsel would be appointed later if a judge heard the case satisfied the requirement even though it was not verbatim.
…interrogated him in a police station for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The police did not effectively advise him of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult with his attorney. Rather, they confronted him with an alleged accomplice who accused him of having perpetrated a murder. When the defendant denied the accusation…
…Hurley , 366 U. S. 117, 127, the context in which such statements were made was that the State had in each case recognized the right to remain silent. In Twining, supra , until now the primary authority, the Court noted that "all the States of the Union have, from time to time, with varying form but uniform meaning, included the…
…stated that he had murdered someone and wanted to talk about it. Anderson immediately advised respondent that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him in court, and that he had the
…with four warnings. These warnings (which have come to be known colloquially as "
…also ante, at 9 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). But those implications are generally quite attenuated. A defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent
Supporting sources
Custody exists when a reasonable person in the suspect's position would not feel free to terminate the encounter and leave. Factors include physical restraint such as handcuffs and placement in a squad car, a locked interview room, prolonged accusatory questioning, and blocking of exits, even if the suspect is told he is free to leave.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the prosecution or the trial judge from inviting the jury or factfinder to treat the defendant's silence as substantive evidence of guilt. Direct references that urge an adverse inference from the choice not to testify are impermissible in both jury and bench trials.
Supporting sources