miranda v. arizona
Case name: Miranda v. State of Arizona
Year decided: 1966
Result: 5-4, in favor of Miranda
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Fifth Amendment (self incrimination) Sixth Amendment (right to counsel)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that law enforcement officials must apply procedural safeguards and inform individuals of their right to counsel and their protection against self incrimination. The Court established specific aspects of the police warning, more commonly known as the Miranda warning, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney
Quote from majority opinion: "He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires...After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him."
Summary of the dissent: The Court had no "factual and textual bases" in the Constitution to justify the proclamation of a new constitutional right, the Miranda warning. The language and writing of the Fifth Amendment in no way supports the proposition that the accused must be informed of his privilege against self-incrimination and the right to refuse interrogation until he can obtain counsel.
Six-word summary: The right to know one's rights.
Year decided: 1966
Result: 5-4, in favor of Miranda
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Fifth Amendment (self incrimination) Sixth Amendment (right to counsel)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that law enforcement officials must apply procedural safeguards and inform individuals of their right to counsel and their protection against self incrimination. The Court established specific aspects of the police warning, more commonly known as the Miranda warning, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney
Quote from majority opinion: "He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires...After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him."
Summary of the dissent: The Court had no "factual and textual bases" in the Constitution to justify the proclamation of a new constitutional right, the Miranda warning. The language and writing of the Fifth Amendment in no way supports the proposition that the accused must be informed of his privilege against self-incrimination and the right to refuse interrogation until he can obtain counsel.
Six-word summary: The right to know one's rights.