View source for Miranda v. Arizona

{{Short description|1966 U.S. Supreme Court case establishing the use of the Miranda warning}}
{{Use American English|date=September 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 |Litigants=Miranda v. Arizona
 |ArgueDateA=February 28
 |ArgueDateB=March 1
 |ArgueYear=1966 
 |DecideDate=June 13
 |DecideYear=1966
 |FullName=[[Ernesto Miranda]] v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart
 |USVol=384
 |USPage=436
 |ParallelCitations=86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 694; 1966 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 2817; 10 [[A.L.R.3d]] 974
 |Prior=Defendant . Superior Ct.; affirmed, 401 [[P.2d]] 721 (Ariz. 1965); cert. granted, {{ussc|382|925|1965|el=no}}.
 |Subsequent=Retrial on remand, defendant convicted, Ariz. Superior Ct.; affirmed, 450 P.2d 364 (Ariz. 1969); rehearing denied, Ariz. Supreme Ct. March 11, 1969; cert. denied, {{ussc|396|868|1969|el=no}}.
 |Holding=The [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] right against self incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney, at no charge if need be. Supreme Court of Arizona reversed and remanded.
 |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759/
 |Majority=Warren|JoinMajority=Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas
 |Concurrence/Dissent=Clark
 |Dissent=Harlan
 |JoinDissent=Stewart, White
 |Dissent2=White
 |JoinDissent2=Harlan, Stewart
 |LawsApplied=[[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amends. V]], [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|VI]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|XIV]]
|ArgueDate=|Docket=|OralReargument=|OpinionAnnouncement=|Concurrence=|JoinConcurrence=|Concurrence2=|JoinConcurrence2=|JoinConcurrence/Dissent=}}

'''''Miranda v. Arizona''''', 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a [[landmark decision]] of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] in which the Court ruled that [[law enforcement]] in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before [[interrogation|interrogating]] them when they are in custody or not free to leave an investigation, or else the person's statements cannot be used as [[evidence (law)|evidence]] at their [[trial]]. Specifically, the Court held that under the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]], the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a [[lawyer]] before and during questioning, and of the right against [[self-incrimination]] before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.

''Miranda'' was viewed by many as a radical change in American criminal law, since the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] was traditionally understood only to protect Americans against formal types of compulsion to confess, such as threats of [[contempt of court]].{{sfnp|Saltzburg|Capra|2018|p=761}} It has had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the [[Miranda warning|''Miranda'' warning]] part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights, which would become known as "''Miranda'' rights". The concept of "Miranda warnings" quickly caught on across American law enforcement agencies, who came to call the practice "Mirandizing".

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision ''[[Berghuis v. Thompkins]]'' (2010), a suspect must unambiguously invoke the right to remain silent or to counsel. If the suspect receives and understands the ''Miranda'' warnings and then voluntarily makes statements, those statements may be treated as establishing an implied waiver of those rights.

== Background ==
=== Legal ===
In 1951 ''Legal Aid in the United States'', a report in the Survey of the Legal Profession series, was published by the [[American Bar Association]]. It identified large gaps in the availability of legal services in both civil and criminal cases for those unable to afford a lawyer. By the early 1960s, in response to the report, efforts by various [[bar association]]s to expand [[legal aid]] for [[defendants]] had resulted in a substantial increase in services, although still with large areas of the country underserved.<ref name=ABAJ>{{cite journal|last1=Brownell|first1=E. A.|year=1961|title=A Decade of Progress: Legal Aid and Defender Services|journal=[[American Bar Association Journal]]|volume=47|number=9|pages=867–871}}</ref>

In the [[Civil law (common law)|civil]] realm, it led to the creation of the [[Legal Services Corporation]] under the [[Great Society]] program of [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]. ''[[Escobedo v. Illinois]]'', a case which closely foreshadowed ''Miranda,'' provided for the presence of counsel during police interrogation.

=== Factual ===

On March 13, 1963, [[Ernesto Miranda]] was arrested by the [[Phoenix Police Department]] officers [[Carroll Cooley]] and Wilfred Young, based on [[circumstantial evidence]] linking him to the [[kidnapping]] and [[rape]] of an 18-year-old woman 10 days earlier.<ref>Miranda also matched the description given by a robbery victim of the perpetrator in a robbery several months earlier.   He was simultaneously interrogated about both of these crimes, confessed to both, but was not asked to and did not write down his confession to the robbery.  He was separately tried and convicted of the robbery and sentenced to 20 to 25 years of imprisonment.  This crime, trial, and sentence is separate from the rape-kidnapping case appealed to the Supreme Court.</ref> After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement: "I do  hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me."<ref name="Lief and Caldwell">[http://www.americanheritage.com/content/%E2%80%9Cyou-have-right-remain-silent%E2%80%9D Michael S. Lief and H. Mitchell Caldwell] "'You Have the Right to Remain Silent,'" ''American Heritage'', August/September 2006.</ref>

However, at no time was Miranda told of his right to counsel. Before being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession that he had already given orally, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, nor was he informed that his statements during the interrogation would be used against him. At trial, when prosecutors offered Miranda's written confession as evidence, his [[Public defender|court-appointed lawyer]], Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. Moore's objection was overruled, and based on this confession and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20–30 years of imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Moore filed Miranda's appeal to the [[Arizona Supreme Court]], claiming that Miranda's confession was not fully voluntary and should not have been admitted into the court proceedings. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the confession in ''State v. Miranda'', 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz. 1965). In affirmation, the Arizona Supreme Court heavily emphasized the fact that Miranda did not specifically request an attorney.<ref>Miranda's oral confession in the robbery case was also appealed and the Arizona Supreme Court likewise affirmed the trial  decision to admit it in ''State v. Miranda'', 401 P.2d 716. This case was not part of the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.</ref>

Attorney [[John Paul Frank]], former law clerk to Justice [[Hugo Black]], represented Miranda in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref name="latimesobit">{{cite news|last1=Oliver|first1=Myrna|title=John P. Frank, 84; Attorney Won Key Decision in 1966 Miranda Case|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-sep-12-me-frank12-story.html|access-date=May 12, 2017|work=Los Angeles Times|date=September 12, 2002}}</ref> [[Gary K. Nelson]] represented Arizona.

== Supreme Court decision ==
On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Miranda's favor that overturned his conviction and remanded his case back to Arizona for retrial.

===Opinion of the Court===
[[File:Earl_Warren.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.15|[[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[Earl Warren]], the author of the majority opinion in ''Miranda'']]
Five justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]].{{sfnp|LaFave|Israel|King|Kerr|2015|loc=§&nbsp;6.5(b)}} The Court ruled that because of the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police (Warren cited several police training manuals that had not been provided in the arguments), no confession could be admissible under the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] self-incrimination clause and [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]] right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware of his rights and the suspect has then waived them:

{{blockquote|The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.<ref>Syllabus to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in ''Miranda v. Arizona'', holding 1.(d).</ref>}}

Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned. The Court also made clear what must happen if a suspect chooses to exercise their rights:

{{blockquote|If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.}}
[[File:Miranda justice brennan.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Justice Brennan's comments on the Miranda decision.]]

Warren also pointed to the existing procedures of the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI), which required informing a suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, provided free of charge if the suspect was unable to pay. If the suspect requested counsel, "the interview is terminated." Warren included the FBI's four-page brief in his opinion.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/10/cops-hated-miranda-warnings-but-the-fbi-helped-create-them/|title=The right to remain silent, brought you by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI|last=Willing|first=Richard|date=June 10, 2016|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

=== Clark's concurrence in part, dissent in part ===
In a separate concurrence in part, dissent in part, Justice [[Tom C. Clark]] argued that the [[Warren Court]] went "too far too fast." Instead, Justice Clark would use the "[[totality of the circumstances]]" test enunciated by [[Arthur Goldberg|Justice Goldberg]] in ''Haynes v. Washington''. Under this test, the court would:

{{blockquote|consider in each case whether the police officer prior to custodial interrogation added the warning that the suspect might have counsel present at the interrogation and, further, that a court would appoint one at his request if he was too poor to employ counsel. In the absence of warnings, the burden would be on the State to prove that counsel was knowingly and intelligently waived or that in the totality of the circumstances, including the failure to give the necessary warnings, the confession was clearly voluntary.}}

=== Harlan's dissent ===
In dissent, Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]] wrote that "nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities." Harlan closed his remarks by quoting former Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]]: "This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added."

=== White's dissent ===
Justice [[Byron White]] took issue with the court having announced a new constitutional right when it had no "factual and textual bases" in the Constitution or previous opinions of the Court for the rule announced in the opinion. He stated: "The proposition that the privilege against self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment." White did not believe the right had any basis in English common law.

White further warned of the dire consequences of the majority opinion:

{{blockquote|I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process.

In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity.}}

== Subsequent developments ==
===Retrial===
Miranda was retried in 1967 after the original case against him was thrown out. This time the prosecution, instead of using the confession, introduced other evidence and called witnesses. One witness was Twila Hoffman, a woman with whom Miranda was living at the time of the offense; she testified that he had told her of committing the crime.<ref>''State v. Miranda'', 104 Ariz. 174, 176, 450 P.2d 364, 366 (1969).</ref><ref name="HeritageApril">{{cite magazine| last = Lief| first = Michael S.|author2=H. Mitchell Caldwell| title = You Have The Right To Remain Silent | magazine = [[American Heritage (magazine)|American Heritage]]| url = http://www.americanheritage.com| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090206174116/http://americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/4/2006_4_48.shtml| date = Aug–Sep 2006| archive-date = 2009-02-06| access-date = 2011-08-24}}</ref> Miranda was convicted in 1967 and sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years.<ref name="HeritageApril" /> The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed,<ref>''State v. Miranda'', 104 Ariz. 174, 450 P.2d 364 (1969)</ref> and the United States Supreme Court denied review.<ref>396 U.S. 868 (1969).</ref> Miranda was paroled in 1972. After his release, he returned to his old neighborhood and made a modest living autographing police officers' "Miranda cards" that contained the text of the warning for reading to arrestees. Miranda was stabbed to death during an argument in a bar on January 31, 1976.<ref name="NYTimes1">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1976/02/01/archives/miranda-slain-main-figure-in-landmark-suspects-rights-case.html |work=The New York Times |title=Miranda Slain; Main Figure in Landmark Suspects' Rights Case |date=February 1, 1976 |access-date=May 12, 2010}}</ref> A suspect was arrested, but due to a lack of evidence against him, he was released.<ref>Charles Montaldo, [http://crime.about.com/od/police/a/miranda_rights.htm Miranda Rights and Warning: Landmark Case Evolved from 1963 Ernesto Miranda Arrest] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140704152727/http://crime.about.com/od/police/a/miranda_rights.htm |date=2014-07-04 }}, about.com; accessed 13 June 2014.</ref>

Another three defendants whose cases had been tied in with Miranda's – an armed robber, a stick-up man, and a bank robber – either made plea bargains to lesser charges or were found guilty again despite the exclusion of their confessions.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843458,00.html|magazine=Time |title=The Law: Catching Up with Miranda |date=March 3, 1967 |access-date=April 9, 2020}}</ref>

===Reaction===
The ''Miranda'' decision was widely criticized when it came down, as many felt it was unfair to inform suspected criminals of their rights, as outlined in the decision. [[Richard Nixon]] and conservatives denounced ''Miranda'' for undermining the efficiency of the police, and argued the ruling would contribute to an increase in crime. Nixon, upon becoming president, promised [[Richard Nixon#Judicial appointments|to appoint]] judges who would reverse the philosophy that he viewed as "soft on crime." Many supporters of law enforcement were angered by the decision's negative view of police officers.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1983/08/07/the-miranda-decision-criminal-wrongs-citizen-rights/9955124b-20b8-4ac6-8b82-3652b79a04e8/|newspaper=The Washington Post|title=The Miranda Decision: Criminal Wrongs, Citizen Rights|date=August 7, 1983|access-date=April 9, 2020}}</ref>

===Miranda warning===
{{main|Miranda warning}}
After the ''Miranda'' decision, the nation's police departments were required to inform arrested persons or suspects of their rights under the ruling prior to custodial interrogation or their answers would not be admissible in court. Such information is called a [[Miranda warning]]. Since it is usually required that the suspects be asked if they understand their rights, courts have also ruled that any subsequent waiver of Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.<ref>See, e.g., {{cite web|title=''Colorado v. Spring'', 479 U.S. 564, 856-57 (1987)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15310909188377217773|website=Google Scholar|access-date=18 March 2018}}</ref>

Many American police departments have pre-printed Miranda waiver forms that a suspect must sign and date (after hearing and reading the warnings again) if an interrogation is to occur.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Edwards|first1=H. Lynn|title=The Effects of Miranda on the Work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation|journal=American Criminal Law Quarterly|date=1966|volume=159|pages=160–161|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/amcrimlr5&div=37&id=&page=|access-date=18 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Miranda Waiver|url=https://www.una.edu/police/docs/forms/miranda.pdf|website=University Police Department|publisher=University of North Alabama|access-date=18 March 2018}}</ref>

Data from the [[Uniform Crime Reports|FBI Uniform Crime Reports]] show a sharp reduction in the [[Crime clearance rate|clearance rate]] of violent and property crimes after ''Miranda''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st218?pg=4 |title=Handcuffing the Cops: Miranda's Harmful Effects on Law Enforcement {{!}} NCPA |date=2015-05-18 |access-date=2016-09-28 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518090554/http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st218?pg=4 |archive-date=2015-05-18 }}</ref> However, according to other studies from the 1960s and 1970s, "contrary to popular belief, Miranda had little, if any, effect on detectives' ability to solve crimes."<ref name="HeritageApril" />

===Legal developments===
The federal [[Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968]] purported to overrule ''Miranda'' for federal criminal cases and restore the "totality of the circumstances" test that had prevailed previous to ''Miranda''.<ref name="saras">{{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mDIjAAAAIBAJ&pg=4156%2C4467268|work=Sarasota Journal|title=Cite Miranda And Go Free|date=31 May 1968|page=7}}</ref> The validity of this provision of the law, which is still codified at [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501- 18 U.S.C. §&nbsp;3501], was not ruled on for another 30 years because the Justice Department never attempted to rely on it to support the introduction of a confession into evidence at any criminal trial.{{citation needed|date=February 2017}}

''Miranda'' was undermined by several subsequent decisions that seemed to grant exceptions to the Miranda warnings, challenging the ruling's claim to be a necessary corollary of the Fifth Amendment. The exceptions and developments that occurred over the years included:

* The Court held in ''Harris v. New York'', {{ussc|401|222|1971}}, that a confession obtained in violation of the ''Miranda'' standards may nonetheless be used for purposes of impeaching the defendant's testimony; that is, if the defendant takes the stand at trial and the prosecution wishes to introduce the defendant's confession as a prior inconsistent statement to attack the defendant's credibility, the ''Miranda'' holding will not prohibit this.
* The Court held in ''[[Rhode Island v. Innis]]'', {{ussc|446|291|1980}}, that a "spontaneous" statement made by a defendant while in custody, even though the defendant has not been given the Miranda warnings or has invoked the right to counsel and a lawyer is not yet present, is admissible in evidence, as long as the statement was not given in response to police questioning or other conduct by the police likely to produce an incriminating response.
* The Court held in ''[[Berkemer v. McCarty]]'', {{ussc|468|420|1984}}, that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in ''Miranda'', regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he is suspected or for which he was arrested.
* The Court held in ''[[New York v. Quarles]]'', {{ussc|467|649|1984}}, that there is also a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before questioning; for example, if the defendant is in possession of information regarding the location of an unattended gun or there are other similar exigent circumstances that require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence. In 2009, the [[Supreme Court of California|California Supreme Court]] upheld the conviction of [[Richard Allen Davis]], finding that the public-safety exception applied despite the fact that 64 days had passed from the disappearance of the girl later found to be murdered.<ref>''People vs. Davis'', S056425.</ref>
* The Court held in ''[[Colorado v. Connelly]]'', {{ussc|479|157|1986}}, that the words "knowing, intelligent, and voluntary" mean only that suspects reasonably appear to understand what they are doing and are not being coerced into signing the waiver; the Court ruled that it is irrelevant whether the suspect may actually have been cognitively or mentally impaired at the time.

''United States v. Garibay'' (1998) clarified an important matter regarding the scope of ''Miranda''. Defendant Jose Garibay barely spoke English and clearly showed a lack of understanding; indeed, "the agent admitted that he had to rephrase questions when the defendant appeared confused."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Einesman |first=Floralynn |title=Confessions and Culture: The Interaction of ''Miranda'' and Diversity |journal=[[Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology]] |year=1999 |volume=90 |issue=1 |pages=1–48 [p. 41] |jstor=1144162 |id={{NCJ|182327}} |doi=10.2307/1144162 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol90/iss1/1 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Because of the defendant's low [[Intelligence quotient|I.Q.]] and poor English-language skills, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that it was a "clear error" when the district court found that Garibay had "knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights." The court investigated his waiver and discovered that it was missing all items for which they were looking: he never signed a waiver, he only received his warnings verbally and in English, and no interpreter was provided although they were available. With an opinion that stressed "the requirement that a defendant 'knowingly and intelligently' waive his Miranda rights," the Court reversed Garibay's conviction and [[Remand (court procedure)|remanded]] his case.<ref name=Findlaw>{{citation | url = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1396556.html | title = UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Rosario GARIBAY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-50606. | author = United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit | date = May 5, 1998 | access-date = February 15, 2017}}</ref>

''Miranda'' survived a strong challenge in ''[[Dickerson v. United States]]'', {{ussc|530|428|2000}}, when the validity of Congress's overruling of ''Miranda'' through §&nbsp;3501 was tested. At issue was whether the Miranda warnings were actually compelled by the Constitution, or were rather merely measures enacted as a matter of judicial policy.{{citation needed|date=June 2014}} In ''Dickerson'', the Court, speaking through [[William H. Rehnquist|Chief Justice Rehnquist]], upheld ''Miranda'' 7–2 and stated that "the warnings have become part of our national culture". In dissent, [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]] argued that ''Miranda'' warnings were not constitutionally required. He cited several cases demonstrating a majority of the then-current court, counting himself, and Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, and Thomas, as well as Rehnquist (who had just delivered a contrary opinion), "[were] on record as believing that a violation of Miranda is not a violation of the Constitution."{{citation needed|date=June 2014}}

Over time, interrogators began to devise techniques to honor the "letter" but not the "spirit" of Miranda.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pearl |first=Tracy Hresko |date=2017–2018 |title=Fifty Years Later: Miranda & the Police |url=https://texastechlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/50-Book-1_Pearl.PUBLISHED.pdf |journal=Texas Tech Law Review |volume=50 |pages=63}}</ref> In the case of ''[[Missouri v. Seibert]]'', {{ussc|542|600|2004}}, the Supreme Court halted one of the more controversial practices. Missouri police had been deliberately withholding Miranda warnings and questioning suspects until they obtained confessions, then providing the warnings, getting waivers, and eliciting confessions again. Justice Souter wrote for the plurality: "Strategists dedicated to draining the substance out of ''Miranda'' cannot accomplish by training instructions what ''Dickerson'' held Congress could not do by statute."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/editedcases/misvsei.html |title=''Missouri v. Seibert'', section VI |access-date=2010-05-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090525183921/http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/editedcases/misvsei.html |archive-date=May 25, 2009 }} Hosted by [[Duke University School of Law]].</ref>

''[[Berghuis v. Thompkins]]'' (2010) was a ruling in which the Supreme Court held that a suspect's "ambiguous or equivocal" statement, or lack of statements, does not mean that police must end an interrogation.<ref>''[[Berghuis v. Thompkins]]'', {{ussc|560|370|2010}}.</ref> At least one scholar has argued that ''Thompkins'' effectively gutted ''Miranda''. In ''The Right to Remain Silent'', Charles Weisselberg wrote that "the majority in ''Thompkins'' rejected the fundamental underpinnings of ''Miranda v. Arizona'''s prophylactic rule and established a new one that fails to protect the rights of suspects" and that 
{{blockquote|But in ''Thompkins'', neither Michigan nor the Solicitor General were able to cite any decision in which a court found that a suspect had given an implied waiver after lengthy questioning. Thompkins persevered for almost three hours before succumbing to his interrogators. In finding a waiver on these facts, ''Thompkins'' gives us an implied waiver doctrine on steroids.<ref name="Weisselberg">Charles Weisselberg and Stephanos Bibas, ''The Right to Remain Silent'', 159 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 69 (2010), Available at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=penn_law_review_online (Retrieved 25 June 2022)</ref>}}

In ''[[Vega v. Tekoh]]'' (2022), the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that police officers could not be sued under a [[42 U.S. Code § 1983|particular statutory cause of action]] for failing to administer the Miranda warning, ruling that not every ''Miranda'' violation is a deprivation of a constitutional right.<ref name="NYTimes2">{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=2022-06-23 |title=Police Officers Can't Be Sued for Miranda Violations, Supreme Court Rules |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/supreme-court-miranda-lawsuits.html |access-date=2022-06-25 |issn=0362-4331|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220624034741/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/supreme-court-miranda-lawsuits.html|archive-date=June 24, 2022}}</ref> In dissent, three justices held that the court had "repeatedly and emphatically" determined that the ''Miranda'' decision established a constitutional right, and would have allowed such lawsuits.<ref name="NYTimes2" /> According to pundits, the ruling ''[[Vega v. Tekoh]]'' "makes it easier for police to obtain coerced confessions – by continuing to ask questions even if someone doesn't want to speak" and "guts a major pathway for incentivizing police to provide a Miranda warning and ensuring their accountability."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Abdollah |first=Tami |title='You have to say the magic words.' What the Supreme Court ruling on Miranda rights means for you |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/06/24/supreme-court-ruling-miranda-weakens-civil-rights-activists-say/7716824001/ |access-date=2022-06-25 |website=USA TODAY |language=en-US|archive-url=https://archive.today/20220625212924/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/06/24/supreme-court-ruling-miranda-weakens-civil-rights-activists-say/7716824001/|archive-date=June 25, 2022}}</ref>

===Effect on law enforcement===

''Miranda''{{'}}s impact on law enforcement remains in dispute. Many legal scholars believe that police have adjusted their practices in response to ''Miranda'' and that its mandates have not hampered police investigations.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Duke |first1=Steven B. |title=Does Miranda Protect the Innocent or the Guilty? |journal=Chapman Law Review |date=2007 |volume=10 |issue=3 |page=551 |url=https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=chapman-law-review |access-date=14 January 2020}}</ref>  Others argue that the ''Miranda'' rule has resulted in a lower rate of conviction,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cassell |first1=Paul G. |title=Miranda's Social Costs: An Empirical Reassessment |journal=Northwestern University Law Review |date=19 August 2011 |volume=90 |issue=2 |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=1912114 |access-date=14 January 2020}}</ref> with a possible reduction in the rate of confessions of between four and sixteen percent.<ref>{{cite book |title=Fairness and effectiveness in policing : the evidence |date=2004 |publisher=National Academies Press |isbn=0309084334 |url=https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=0309084334}}</ref> Some scholars argue that Miranda warnings have reduced the rate at which the police solve crimes,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cassell |first1=Paul G. |last2=Fowles |first2=Richard |title=Still Handcuffing the Cops: A Review of Fifty Years of Empirical Evidence of Miranda's Harmful Effects on Law Enforcement |journal=Brigham Young Law Review |date=2017 |volume=97 |page=685 |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=3000098 |access-date=14 January 2020}}</ref> while others question their methodology and conclusions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Alschuler |first1=Albert W. |title=Miranda's Fourfold Failure |journal=Boston Law Review |date=2017 |volume=97 |page=649 |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=2969143 |access-date=14 January 2020}}</ref>

== In popular culture ==
The 2023 film [[Miranda's Victim]] directed by [[Michelle Danner]] explores the origins of the [[Miranda warning]] and the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court in favour of Miranda.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-05-18 |title=Movie Filmed At New Jersey School Tells Origin Of U.S. Miranda Rights |url=https://patch.com/new-jersey/middletown-nj/movie-filmed-middletown-school-tells-origin-u-s-miranda-rights |access-date=2023-12-10 |website=Middletown, NJ Patch |language=en}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[United States constitutional criminal procedure]]
* [[List of criminal competencies]]
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 384]]
* [[Miranda warning]]
* ''[[Schmerber v. California]]''
* ''[[Stansbury v. California]]''
* ''[[R. v. Hebert]]''
* ''[[R. v. Brydges]]''

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

* {{cite book | first1 = Wayne R. | last1 = LaFave | first2 = Jerold H. | last2 = Israel | first3 = Nancy J. | last3 = King | first4 = Orin S. | last4 = Kerr | title = Criminal Procedure | edition = 4th | location = St. Paul | publisher = West Academic Publishing | year = 2015 | oclc = 934517477 }}
* {{cite book | first1 = Stephen A. | last1 = Saltzburg | first2 = Daniel J. | last2 = Capra | title = American Criminal Procedure: Cases and Commentary | edition = 11th | location = St. Paul | publisher = West Academic | year = 2018 | isbn = 978-1683289845 }}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite book |title=Miranda: Crime, law, and politics |last=Baker |first=Liva |year=1983 |publisher=Atheneum |location=New York |isbn=978-0-689-11240-9 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/mirandacrimelawa00bake }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Kassin |first1=Saul M. |last2=Norwick |first2=Rebecca J. |year=2004 |title=Why People Waive Their Miranda Rights: The Power of Innocence |journal=[[Law and Human Behavior]] |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=211–221 |doi=10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5 |pmid=15141779 |citeseerx=10.1.1.334.983 |s2cid=18578057 }}
* {{cite book |title=Origins of the Fifth Amendment |last=Levy |first=Leonard W. |author-link=Leonard Levy |year=1986 |orig-year=1969 |publisher=Macmillan |location=New York |isbn=978-0-02-919580-2 |edition=Reprint |title-link=Origins of the Fifth Amendment }}
* {{cite book |chapter=''Miranda v. Arizona'' (1966) and the rights of the criminally accused |title=Latinos and American Law: Landmark Supreme Court Cases |last=Soltero |first=Carlos R. |year=2006 |publisher=University of Texas Press |location=Austin, TX |isbn=978-0-292-71411-3 |pages=61–74 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J1WRQBjFLTUC&pg=PA61 }}
* {{cite book |title=Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent |last=Stuart |first=Gary L. |year=2004 |publisher=University of Arizona Press |location=Tucson, Arizona |isbn=978-0-8165-2313-9 }}

== External links ==
* {{wikisource-inline|Miranda v. Arizona|''Miranda v. Arizona''}}
* {{caselaw source
 | case=''Miranda v. Arizona'', {{ussc|384|436|1966|el=no}}
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107252/miranda-v-arizona/
 | findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/384/436.html
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6386252699535531764
 | justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep384/usrep384436/usrep384436.pdf
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759
}}
* [https://archive.org/details/miranda-v.-arizona-briefs/ Case briefs for ''Miranda v. Arizona'']
* [http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/11/Miranda-V-Arizona "Supreme Court Landmark Case ''Miranda v. Arizona''"] from [[C-SPAN]]'s ''[[Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions]]''
* [https://guides.loc.gov/miranda-v-arizona/introduction An online publication titled "Miranda v. Arizona:  The Rights to Justice" containing the most salient documents and other primary and secondary sources] from the [[Law Library of Congress]]

{{US5thAmendment crimpro|self}}
{{Phoenix Police Department|state=autocollapse}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Miranda v. Arizona}}
[[Category:History of law enforcement in the United States]]
[[Category:Miranda warning case law| ]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases in 1966]]
[[Category:20th-century American trials]]
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:1966 in Arizona]]
[[Category:Legal history of Arizona]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]
[[Category:Phoenix Police Department]]
[[Category:Trials in Arizona]]