Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Overview
Miranda v. Arizona established that suspects must be informed of their rights before custodial interrogation.
The defendant confessed without being told of his right to remain silent or have legal counsel present.
Ruling
The Supreme Court held that statements made during custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless the suspect has been informed of and waived their constitutional rights.
Key Holding
“The prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.”
Implication
The Miranda Warning became mandatory when conducting custodial interrogation.
Failure to administer the warning invalidates any statement obtained.
Quick Guide
- Read Miranda Rights before questioning any suspect in custody.
- Not required until interrogation is about to occur.
- Delay rights reading if suspect requires medical care or sobriety first.
- Once rights are invoked, all questioning must immediately cease until counsel is present.