Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to a Phoenix police station for questioning in connection with the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman. Miranda was not informed of his right to remain silent or his right to have an attorney present during questioning. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes and signed a written confession.

The confession was admitted as evidence at trial, and Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request an attorney and his confession was voluntary.

The case was consolidated with three other similar cases involving confessions obtained during custodial interrogation without proper warnings about constitutional rights. All four cases raised the question of what procedural safeguards are required to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Before any custodial interrogation, police must inform suspects of their constitutional rights, including: (1) the right to remain silent, (2) that anything they say can be used against them in court, (3) the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and (4) the right to have an attorney appointed if they cannot afford one.

If a suspect invokes their right to remain silent or requests an attorney, interrogation must cease. Any statement obtained in violation of these requirements is inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.

Coercive Atmosphere: The Court found that custodial interrogation creates an inherently coercive atmosphere that undermines the individual's will to resist and compels them to speak when they would not otherwise do so freely. The isolation and unfamiliar surroundings compound this coercive effect.

Fifth Amendment Protection: The privilege against self-incrimination is fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and must be protected not only in formal court proceedings but also during police interrogation. The amendment requires that individuals be free from compulsion to be witnesses against themselves.

Procedural Safeguards: To dispel the coercive atmosphere and ensure that statements are truly voluntary, specific warnings must be given before custodial interrogation. These warnings inform suspects of their rights and provide them with the opportunity to exercise those rights.

Right to Counsel: The presence of an attorney during interrogation helps protect the individual's Fifth Amendment rights and ensures that any statement made is truly voluntary. The right to counsel is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege.

The Court emphasized that these procedural safeguards are not intended to hamper law enforcement but to ensure that confessions are obtained in a manner consistent with constitutional requirements and are therefore more reliable evidence.

This case fundamentally transformed American criminal procedure by establishing clear, mandatory warnings that police must give before custodial interrogation. The Miranda warnings became one of the most recognizable aspects of American law enforcement and criminal justice.

The decision balanced law enforcement needs with constitutional protections, providing clear guidelines for police while protecting suspects' Fifth Amendment rights. It helped professionalize police interrogation practices and reduced the likelihood of coerced confessions.

Miranda rights have become deeply embedded in American legal culture and continue to serve as a crucial protection for individuals in police custody. The case demonstrates the Supreme Court's role in translating constitutional principles into practical procedural requirements.