Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 · 1966-06-13
Custodial interrogation requires the warnings that now carry the case's name.
Edition: U. S. Reports, bound volume
Source: U. S. Reports, volume 384, at 436 (Library of Congress) · transcription: Caselaw Access Project
Voices: Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court. · Mr. Justice Clark, · Mr. Justice White, with whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Stewart join, dissenting. I.
The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.
We dealt with certain phases of this problem recently in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964). There, as in the four cases before us, law enforcement officials took the defendant into custody and 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 and said “I didn’t shoot Manuel, you did it,” they…Read it in the reading room ›