Miranda Day
This may not be as old, or as clean cut, as you might think.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering questions at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand these rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
While the specific wording varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, most of us are familiar with these words from watching movies and TV shows.
What might surprise some of us is how relatively young the concept of the Miranda warning is. It was only 57 years ago today (June 13th, 1966) that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Miranda v. Arizona.
Get John Moyle’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This ruling, based in part on the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, established that all suspects must be advised of their rights prior to interrogation by law enforcement. That said, what constitutes an "interrogation" is not quite as clear cut as works of fiction might have us believe. For example, the Miranda requirement generally only applies if a suspect who is being detained. Also, mirandizing a suspect is not necessarily required at the time of arrest. Advising a suspect of these rights is technically only required before a suspect is interrogated. Additionally, often as a result of later rulings, there are other situations when questions asked by law enforcement don’t fall under Miranda requirements. Examples include (but are not limited to):
- A suspect’s answers to basic booking questions
- Their answers to basic roadside stop questions
- Voluntary statements made by suspects to law enforcement officers while not being detained (whether they knew they were talking to Law enforcement officers or not)
- A suspect’s answers to questions asked by a hostage negotiator
- Statements made by a suspect to an informant, who is not a member of law enforcement (even if that informant is actively working for law enforcement at the time)
Additionally, questions asked by law enforcement when a detained suspect has not been mirandaized, or has invoked their right to remain silent, can sometimes still be admissible in court if they come under the "public safety" exception. For example, if a suspect in custody is believed to be a bomber, and the police also have reason to believe there is an active bomb yet to be found, any answers to questions asked to learn the whereabouts of that bomb could still be admissible in court.
Many likely also don't know that while the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Ernesto Miranda that was based on a disputed confession (establishing the concept of Miranda rights in the process), he was retried and convicted again in October of that same year without the use of the disputed confession.
Note: I am not an attorney and this article is in no way intended to be legal advice in any way. Always consult qualified attorneys on any legal matter.
