Also known as: Miranda rule · Miranda warning · Miranda warnings · Miranda rights
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A set of constitutional safeguards requiring that a suspect in custody receive specific warnings about the rights to remain silent and to have counsel present before any interrogation begins. Statements obtained in violation of these safeguards are generally inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief. The warnings need not follow a rigid script so long as they convey the essential rights, and routine traffic stops ordinarily fall outside the custodial interrogation trigger.
Mason McCarthy was pulled over for a broken taillight. The officer asked him whether he had been drinking and where he was coming from. McCarthy answered without receiving any warnings. The answers are admissible because the brief roadside detention did not place McCarthy in custody for Miranda purposes.
Maria Morales was arrested and told by the detective that she had the right to remain silent, that anything she said could be used against her, and that the police had no way of giving her a lawyer but one would be appointed if and when she went to court. Morales then confessed. The confession is admissible because the warnings conveyed the substance of the required rights even though the phrasing was not verbatim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Michelle Murphy was arrested and given Miranda warnings. Her family had retained counsel who tried to reach her, but police did not inform Murphy of the lawyer's efforts. Murphy waived her rights and confessed. The confession is admissible because the failure to disclose the lawyer's attempts did not invalidate an otherwise knowing and voluntary waiver.
Madison Meyers was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and remained silent when questioned. At trial she testified to an exculpatory version of events. The prosecutor cross-examined her about the earlier silence. The cross-examination is improper because post-Miranda silence may not be used against the defendant.
All interrogation must cease. Officers may not reinitiate questioning about any offense until counsel is provided or the suspect initiates further communication and validly waives the right.
No. Once Miranda warnings are given, the implicit assurance that silence will carry no penalty bars the government from using that silence as substantive evidence against the defendant, including to undermine an insanity claim.
Later questioning is permissible if officers scrupulously honor the invocation by immediately stopping, allowing a significant time gap, administering fresh warnings, and limiting the new session to a different offense.
No. Only an unambiguous request that a reasonable officer would understand as invoking the right to counsel halts interrogation. Equivocal remarks leave officers free to continue.
…only question presented by the petition for certiorari reads as follows: “Whether law enforcement officers must give ‘Miranda warnings’ to individuals arrested for misdemeanor traffic offenses.” In Parts I, II, and IV of its opinion, the Court answers that question in the affirmative and explains why that answer requires…