Case
Miranda v. Arizona
Answer: Miranda v. Arizona. In this 1966 decision, the Court required warnings and a valid, voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver before using statements from custodial interrogation in the prosecution’s case-in-chief. It defined custodial interrogation and specified the content of the warnings. A narrow public-safety exception was later recognized in New York v. Quarles.
Rule to remember
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) held that, before custodial interrogation, police must administer specified warnings and obtain a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver; absent that, statements are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
Key elements and checks
- Trigger: custody plus interrogation by law enforcement.
- Required advisements: right to remain silent; that statements may be used against the suspect; right to counsel present; appointed if indigent.
- Custody defined by significant restraint on freedom; interrogation means questioning by officers.
- Government’s burden: prove waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
- Invocation: if the suspect requests counsel or indicates a desire to remain silent, questioning must cease.
- Limited exceptions: routine booking questions and the public-safety exception for imminent threats. Wording of warnings may vary by jurisdiction.
In the source’s words
“By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (opinion text) — LII
“Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent,”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (opinion text) — LII
State and local agencies often use different formulations of the warnings, and some states add protections by statute or state constitution. Check local law, especially for juveniles.