MIRANDA V ARIZONA 384 U.S 436 1966 MIRANDA V ARIZONA U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL CIVIL RIGHTS/EQUALITY U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE THIS RULING ESTABLISHED THE REQUIREMENT TO INFORM PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES OF THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS TO SILENCE AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION BEFORE ANYTHING THEY SAY CAN BE USED AGAINST THEM IN COURT THIS DECISION RULED THAT AN ACCUSED PERSON'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BEGIN AT THE TIME OF ARREST THE RULING CAUSED CONTROVERSY BECAUSE IT COULD POTENTIALLY INTERFERE WITH BRINGING GUILTY PEOPLE TO JUSTICE BACKGROUND IN 1963 ERNESTO MIRANDA A YOUNG MAN OF LIMITED EDUCATION WAS ARRESTED FOR KIDNAPPING AND ASSAULTING A YOUNG WOMAN IN ARIZONA AFTER TWO HOURS OF INTERROGATION MIRANDA SIGNED A CONFESSION AND WAS LATER FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME THE ARRESTING OFFICERS HOWEVER ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD NOT ADVISED MIRANDA OF HIS RIGHTS TO TALK WITH AN ATTORNEY OR TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY WITH HIM DURING QUESTIONING MIRANDA APPEALED HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT BY NOT INFORMING HIM OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS THE POLICE HAD VIOLATED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON FEBRUARY 28 MARCH 1 1966 AND DECIDED ON JUNE 13 1966 BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 4 CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN SPOKE FOR THE COURT JUSTICES TOM CLARK JOHN HARLAN BYRON WHITE AND POTTER STEWART DISSENTED THE COURT RULED IN MIRANDA'S FAVOR INDICATING THAT HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST THE COURT DECIDED THAT IN ORDER TO PROTECT AN ACCUSED PERSON'S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HE OR SHE MUST BE GIVEN FOUR WARNINGS AFTER BEING TAKEN INTO POLICE CUSTODY 1 THE SUSPECT HAS THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT 2 ANYTHING THE SUSPECT SAYS CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST HIM OR HER 3 THE SUSPECT HAS THE RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY AND TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT DURING QUESTIONING AND 4 IF THE SUSPECT CANNOT AFFORD A LAWYER ONE WILL BE PROVIDED BEFORE QUESTIONING BEGINS EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT TODAY THEN THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE IS AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND SERVES TO PROTECT PERSONS IN ALL SETTINGS IN WHICH THEIR FREEDOM OF ACTION IS CURTAILED RESTRICTED IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY FROM BEING COMPELLED TO INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT WITHOUT PROPER SAFEGUARDS THE PROCESS OF IN CUSTODY INTERROGATION OF PERSONS SUSPECTED OR ACCUSED OF CRIME CONTAINS INHERENTLY BASICALLY COMPELLING PRESSURES WHICH WORK TO UNDERMINE THE INDIVIDUAL'S WILL TO RESIST AND TO COMPEL HIM TO SPEAK WHERE HE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE DO SO FREELY IN ORDER TO COMBAT THESE PRESSURES AND TO PERMIT A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION THE ACCUSED MUST BE ADEQUATELY AND EFFECTIVELY APPRISED INFORMED OF HIS RIGHTS AND THE EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS MUST BE FULLY HONORED
