“No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” The Origin of the Miranda Warning is rooted in this fundamental protection found in the Constitution.
This is the “right to remain silent” guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is the basis for what we now call the “Miranda Rights.” The Miranda rights were first definitively set out in 1966, in a 5-4 decision the United States Supreme Court issued after considering the appeals of four defendants. One of those defendants was Ernesto Miranda.
Facts of Miranda’s Case
On March 2, 1963, a teenaged girl with an intellectual disability finished her shift at a local movie theater and took the bus to go home. She got off at her stop and began walking to her house. On the way, a car stopped directly in front of her. A man got out, grabbed her, pressed a sharp object against her throat, and repeatedly ordered, “Don’t scream and you won’t get hurt.” He forced her into the back seat of the car, tied her wrists and ankles, drove her to a deserted location, and raped her. Then he took her money, drove her into town, let her go, and drove away.
She ran home, crying and incoherent. Her sister called police. This investigation would later become central to the origin of the Miranda Warning in U.S. law. Detectives arrived and interviewed the victim. During the next nine days, detectives gathered additional evidence, eventually tracking down the car used in the attack, tracing it to a vacant home, and learning from neighbors that the occupants had moved out only days before, using a “United Produce” truck to haul their belongings.
As detectives continued investigating the events that contributed to the origin of the Miranda Warning, they contacted United Produce and learned that a man named Ernesto Miranda had just started working for them and had been allowed to use a company truck to move to the new city. Police officers checked for records on Miranda and learned that he had prior convictions for robbery, auto theft, and assault with intent to commit rape. They also learned that he matched the victim’s description of her attacker.
The detectives contacted the post office to obtain Miranda’s new address. When they drove to the house, they saw a car matching the description the victim had given parked in front. They knocked on the front door and asked to speak with Miranda. He came to the door, and he agreed to come to the police station and talk with the officers. At the police station, Miranda was taken to an interview room with a two-way mirror. Over the next two hours, police officers confronted him with his prior record and with some of the evidence against him in the latest incident. He denied knowing anything about the incident and claimed to have been at work in a different town that night. He also agreed to participate in a line-up. These events would later become significant in the legal history that shaped the origin of the Miranda Warning.
Meanwhile, other law enforcement officers contacted the victim and asked her to come to the station. Officers suspected that Miranda may have been the perpetrator of similar crimes in the area, and they also asked those victims to come to the station.
When two of the victims arrived, the law enforcement officers conducted the line-up with Miranda and three men from the local jail. Neither of the victims was certain that Miranda was the perpetrator. They said if they could hear his voice, they thought they could be sure.
Back in the interview room, Miranda asked, “How did I do?” A police officer responded, “Not too good, Ernie.” Miranda said, “Well, I guess I’d better tell you about it then.” He confessed to the crimes. He provided details and a written confession of his kidnapping, rape, and robbery of the teenaged victim. A detective escorted that victim into the interview room. Miranda was asked to state his name and whether he recognized her. After stating his name, he said, “That’s the girl.” The detective escorted her out of the room. She told him she was positive that Miranda was the man who raped her.
Miranda was placed under arrest and booked into jail. During his trial, part of his confession was admitted into evidence against him. The jury found him guilty.
The Decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Miranda appealed his conviction, claiming police violated his right to remain silent.
The United States Supreme Court agreed. The Court explained that to protect the right to remain silent, police officers are required to give specific warnings before subjecting a suspect to “custodial interrogation.” “Custodial” means placing the suspect under arrest or under arrest-like restraint. “Interrogation” means words or actions that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
The Court said:
Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. . . . [The person must be told] that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
Additionally, the Court required police officers to immediately cease questioning if at any point the suspect indicated that he or she wanted to consult with an attorney or did not wish to be interrogated. If these rights are violated, the general rule is the suspect’s statement cannot be used as evidence at trial.
Impact of Miranda
The Court reversed Miranda’s conviction and sent his case back for a new trial where his unwarned statements would not be used as evidence against him. His nine-day retrial began on February 15, 1967. After deliberating for 83 minutes, the jury found him guilty of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to “20 to 30 years” of imprisonment, but he was paroled in 1972, committed additional offenses, was returned to prison, and was again paroled in 1975. The following January, he was killed in a bar fight.
In the nearly 60 years after the Miranda decision, courts have continued to clarify how and when it applies, answering questions such as what circumstances show “custody;” what actions, statements, or questions by peace officers are “interrogation;” at what point does a witness interview change into a custodial interrogation of a suspect; whether a warned statement must be suppressed if it came after an unwarned statement; whether police officers must provide the Miranda warning each time they interview the suspect even if the suspect already knows the Miranda rights; whether a suspect’s waiver of the rights is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; and many others.
Interested in learning more?
PLS offers police self-study online legal training on a wide variety of practical issues to help police officers make good decisions in challenging situations.