Where did the phrase, “You have the right to remain silent,” come from? Before 1966, police weren’t required to tell people about those rights before questioning them.
What Happened?
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona and questioned by police for about two hours. He signed a written confession, but he had never been told he could remain silent or ask for a lawyer. His case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
What Did the Court Decide?
The Supreme Court ruled that before police question someone in custody, they must explain certain constitutional rights, including:
- The right to remain silent.
- That anything they say can be used against them in court.
- The right to have an attorney present.
- If they cannot afford an attorney, one can be appointed.
If those warnings aren’t given, statements made during questioning may not be used in court.
Why Did It Matter?
The ruling changed police procedures across the country almost overnight. It created what we now know as the Miranda warning, helping make sure people understand their constitutional rights before answering questions that could later be used against them.
How Does It Affect Us Today?
Whether you’ve heard it in a courtroom or on a TV crime show, the Miranda warning traces back to this case. More than 60 years later, it remains one of the most recognizable parts of our criminal justice system and continues to shape how police conduct custodial interrogations.
Why This Case Still Matters
- The Miranda warning became a standard part of police procedures across the United States.
- It helps ensure people understand key constitutional rights before custodial questioning.
- More than 60 years later, it’s still one of the most recognizable Supreme Court decisions in American history.