Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona
Year: Argued 1966 ; Decided 1966
Result: 5-4 in favor of Miranda
Related Constitutional Issue/ Amendment: 5th Amendment dealing with self incrimination
Civil Rights or Civil Liberties: Civil Liberties
Significance/ Precedent: The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination." The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations. This created the Miranda Warnings which the police must say to you when they arrest you. If they do not say they them you go free with no charges even if you are guilty.
Quote from Majority Opinion: "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. [n4] As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed."
6-Word Summary: When arrested police must state rights
Year: Argued 1966 ; Decided 1966
Result: 5-4 in favor of Miranda
Related Constitutional Issue/ Amendment: 5th Amendment dealing with self incrimination
Civil Rights or Civil Liberties: Civil Liberties
Significance/ Precedent: The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination." The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations. This created the Miranda Warnings which the police must say to you when they arrest you. If they do not say they them you go free with no charges even if you are guilty.
Quote from Majority Opinion: "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. [n4] As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed."
6-Word Summary: When arrested police must state rights