Legal Definitions - Miranda Warning

The Miranda Warning is a crucial set of rights that law enforcement officers are constitutionally required to inform individuals of once they are taken into police custody and before they are questioned. This requirement stems from the landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona.

The primary purpose of the Miranda Warning is to safeguard an individual's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (the right to remain silent) and their Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel during a custodial interrogation. If police fail to provide these warnings, or if the individual does not validly waive these rights, any statements made by the person during the interrogation may be inadmissible as evidence in court under the exclusionary rule.

Specifically, the Miranda Warning informs a person in custody of their right to:

• Remain silent.
• Understand that anything they say can be used against them in court.
• Consult with an attorney and have an attorney present during questioning.
• Have an attorney appointed for them by the court if they cannot afford one.

Here are some examples illustrating the application of the Miranda Warning:

• Example 1: Traffic Stop Escalates to Arrest
  A driver is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. During the stop, the officer notices signs of intoxication and asks the driver to perform field sobriety tests. After the tests, the officer determines there is probable cause for arrest and places the driver in handcuffs, stating they are under arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). Before asking any further questions about alcohol consumption or where the driver was coming from, the officer must read the Miranda Warning.

  This illustrates that once the driver is formally arrested and no longer free to leave (i.e., in custody), any questioning designed to elicit incriminating statements must be preceded by the Miranda Warning.

• Example 2: Voluntary Interview Becomes Custodial
  Detectives invite a person to the police station for an interview regarding a recent theft, emphasizing that the person is not under arrest and is free to leave at any time. Initially, the person answers questions voluntarily. However, as the interview progresses, the detectives present evidence strongly implicating the person, and the tone shifts. The detectives then explicitly tell the person they are now a suspect, are no longer free to leave, and are being detained. At this point, before continuing to question the person about the theft, the detectives must issue the Miranda Warning.

  This demonstrates that the Miranda Warning becomes necessary when an interview transitions from a voluntary conversation to a custodial interrogation, where a reasonable person would no longer feel free to terminate the questioning and leave.

• Example 3: Post-Arrest Interrogation at the Station
  A suspect is arrested at their home for alleged involvement in a robbery and transported to the police station. Upon arrival at the interrogation room, before any questions are asked about the robbery itself, the arresting officer reads the suspect their Miranda Warning, ensuring they understand their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. The suspect then chooses to invoke their right to an attorney, and all questioning ceases until legal counsel is present.

  This example shows the standard application of the Miranda Warning immediately following an arrest and before formal questioning, and how an individual can exercise the rights provided by the warning.