Also known as: right to silence · right to remain silent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional protection under the Fifth Amendment that permits a suspect in custody to refuse to answer law enforcement questions. The protection requires officers to deliver specific warnings before custodial interrogation and to obtain a knowing voluntary waiver before any statement becomes admissible. Silence alone after warnings does not invoke the right and answering even one question can establish an implied waiver.
Rita Russell received Miranda warnings at the station. She remained silent for several minutes then answered one question about her whereabouts on the night in question. The court held that her response constituted a valid implied waiver so the statement was admissible.
Rhea Reynolds told officers she did not want to talk and questioning stopped at once. Two hours later a different investigator gave fresh warnings and asked only about a separate billing scheme. The later confession was admissible because the original invocation had been scrupulously honored.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rowan Russell was escorted into a locked trailer and told he could not leave. Detectives questioned him for an hour about cash skimming without any warnings and he signed a confession. The statement was suppressed because custodial interrogation occurred without the required advisements.
Renata Russo underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation after her arrest. The examiner elicited statements used at sentencing to prove an aggravating factor. The evidence was excluded because no warnings about silence or counsel had been given before the examination.
Rosalind Reed faced a state proceeding that required her to testify or face contempt. She asserted the privilege and refused to answer questions that could incriminate her. The compulsion was held invalid because the Fifth Amendment protects against state-forced self-incrimination.
Ryan Roberts made an unwarned statement during a custodial interview. Officers used that statement to locate physical evidence hidden at a remote site. The evidence was suppressed as fruit of the Fifth Amendment violation.
No. Silence alone does not invoke the right. The suspect must clearly and unambiguously assert the desire to remain silent.
Police may resume if they immediately cease questioning, wait a significant period, give fresh warnings, and limit the new interview to a different crime.
Officers must deliver the specific Miranda warnings and obtain a knowing voluntary and intelligent waiver.
Yes. The prosecution may not comment on the defendant's decision not to testify or invite the jury to draw an adverse inference from that silence.
…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…