Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The term “Miranda Rights” comes from a historic 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case
called Miranda v. Arizona. The court held that if the police want to question (interrogate)
a person in police custody, they must tell them of the Fifth Amendment protection
against self-incriminating statements and their right to an attorney.
This means you can choose not to answer an officer’s questions and may request an
attorney.
Police do not always need to warn you about your rights during the arrest or while you
are waiting at the jail. Simply being arrested or detained by police (in custody) does not
mean you will hear the Miranda warning. You will hear it before the interrogation starts.
If you don’t, law enforcement may have to throw out anything said in the interrogation.
In any case, it is advisable to stay silent to avoid saying anything that might make you
look guilty whether you hear the warning or not. (Note that you may need to provide
identification and answer basic questions.)
The Court ruled that the interrogation was coercive in nature and that he wasn't
informed about his right to an attorney. Therefore, they concluded, he didn't voluntarily
waive these rights when he signed the statement because he didn't understand his
rights. Had he retained legal counsel, he probably wouldn't have been so forthcoming
during the interrogation.
For example, suppose Dan is arrested and, without being read his Miranda rights, is
questioned by police officers about a bank robbery. Unaware that he has the right to
remain silent, Dan confesses to committing the robbery and tells the police that the
money is buried in his backyard. Acting on this information, the police dig up the money.
When Dan's attorney challenges the confession in court, the judge will likely find it
unlawful. This means that not only will the confession be thrown out of the case against
Dan, but so will the money itself because it was discovered solely as a result of the
unlawful confession.