The Miranda Opinion and Criminal Procedure

Vocabulary flashcards detailing key constitutional terms, procedural concepts, and Supreme Court precedents surrounding Miranda rights, custody, interrogation, and the exclusionary rule.

Self-Incrimination Clause of the 5th Amendment

A constitutional provision interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court to require the government to inform suspects of their constitutional rights when subjected to custodial interrogation.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

A landmark Supreme Court decision holding that suspects must be advised of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney prior to questioning if they are both in custody and being interrogated.

The Miranda Warnings

A set of four constitutional advisements provided to suspects: 1) the right to remain silent; 2) anything said can and will be used against them in a court of law; 3) the right to an attorney during questioning; and 4) an attorney will be provided if they cannot afford one.

Waiver of Miranda

The voluntary, knowing, and intelligent relinquishment of Miranda protections by a suspect, allowing statements and confessions made during police interrogation to be admissible at trial.

Invocation of Miranda Rights

An explicit statement made by a suspect during custodial interrogation indicating they do not wish to answer questions or that they want an attorney present, which legally requires police to immediately stop interrogation.

Custody (Per Miranda)

A situation evaluated under the totality of circumstances where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave and their freedom of action is restricted to a degree associated with a formal arrest.

Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)

A Supreme Court case ruling that questioning during a routine traffic stop does not require Miranda warnings because the driver's freedom of action is not restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest.

Interrogation (Per Rhode Island v. Innis)

Direct questioning or any police words or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect.

Spontaneous Statements ("Blurts")

Unprompted admissions or remarks made by a suspect in custody that are admissible at trial even if given before Miranda warnings or without a lawyer present.

Public Safety Exception

A doctrine established in New York v. Quarles (1984) holding that Miranda warnings are not required when police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.

New York v. Quarles (1984)

A Supreme Court decision creating the public safety exception to Miranda, allowing unwarned custodial statements and resulting physical evidence to be admitted when elicited to mitigate immediate danger.

Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)

A Supreme Court case establishing that a suspect must make an unambiguous assertion of the right to remain silent; mere silence does not invoke the right, and knowingly responding to questioning constitutes an implied waiver.

J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011)

A Supreme Court case holding that a juvenile suspect's age is an objective factor that must be considered when determining whether a reasonable person in the child's position would feel in custody for Miranda purposes.

Child Interrogation Protection Act (CIPA)

A 2022 Maryland statute establishing specialized legal requirements and procedural protections for interrogating juvenile suspects.

The Exclusionary Rule

A judicially created legal doctrine designed to deter government misconduct and preserve judicial integrity by blocking unconstitutionally gathered evidence from use in criminal trials.

Weeks v. United States (1914)

The Supreme Court case that first established the exclusionary rule at the federal level for federal criminal prosecutions.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

The Supreme Court case that incorporated and extended the exclusionary rule to state and local law enforcement through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

An extension of the exclusionary rule holding that derivative secondary evidence, physical objects, or confessions obtained as a direct result of an initial unconstitutional police action are tainted and inadmissible.

Utah v. Strieff (2016)

A Supreme Court decision holding that the discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuates the connection between an unlawful investigatory stop and evidence seized incident to the arrest.

Brown v. Illinois Three-Factor Attenuation Test

A legal framework used to determine whether derivative evidence is untainted by prior police illegality, evaluating: 1) temporal proximity; 2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and 3) the purpose and flagrancy of official misconduct.