Miranda Rights & Fifth Amendment
Miranda v. Arizona requires that suspects in custodial interrogation be informed of their right to silence and counsel; statements obtained without Miranda warnings are inadmissible.
Overview
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement to inform suspects of specific rights before custodial interrogation. These "Miranda warnings" include: the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used in court, the right to an attorney, and the right to appointed counsel if indigent.
Miranda applies only when two conditions are met: custody and interrogation. Custody means a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement to the degree associated with arrest — the objective test asks whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would feel free to leave. Interrogation includes both express questioning and any words or actions the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Once Miranda warnings are given, the suspect may waive their rights. A valid waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The government bears the burden of proving waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. If the suspect invokes the right to silence, questioning must cease. Under Edwards v. Arizona, if the suspect requests counsel, all questioning must stop until counsel is provided or the suspect reinitates communication.
Exceptions to Miranda include public safety (New York v. Quarles), routine booking questions, and undercover operations. Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief but may be used for impeachment. Physical evidence discovered through un-Mirandized statements is generally admissible (United States v. Patane).
Key Takeaway
Miranda warnings are required when there is both custody AND interrogation. Without both elements, Miranda does not apply.
Exam Tip
Analyze custody and interrogation separately — both must be present. For custody, use the objective reasonable person test. For interrogation, look beyond express questioning to functional equivalents. Always check for waiver and invocation of rights.
Landmark Cases (11)
Frequently Asked Questions
When are Miranda warnings required?
Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation — when a suspect is in custody (not free to leave) AND is being interrogated (express questioning or its functional equivalent). Both elements must be present.
What happens if a suspect invokes the right to counsel?
Under Edwards v. Arizona, if a suspect requests counsel during custodial interrogation, all questioning must stop until an attorney is provided OR the suspect voluntarily reinitiates communication about the investigation.
Can un-Mirandized statements ever be used?
Un-Mirandized statements are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief but can be used for impeachment if the defendant testifies. Physical evidence discovered through un-Mirandized statements may also be admissible.
Master Miranda Rights & Fifth Amendment with Briefly
AI-powered tools built for law students. Generate case briefs, practice cold calls, and ace your criminal law exam.