Miranda v. Arizona and Related Rights

Established that police must inform interrogated individuals in custody of their constitutional rights.
Rights include:
- Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
- Sixth Amendment right to an attorney
Known as the "Miranda warning" or being "read their rights."

Ernesto Miranda arrested in Phoenix for kidnapping and rape.
Voluntarily participated in a line-up; identified by the victim as the attacker.
Interrogated for two hours without being informed of his rights.
Gave a written confession stating it was made voluntarily, without realizing he had the right to counsel or to remain silent.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that without these warnings, statements from custodial interrogation are primarily inadmissible in court.
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion acknowledging the vulnerability of individuals in custody.
Dissenting opinions by Justices Harlan, Stewart, White, and Clark expressed concerns about imposing strict rules on police.

Does not apply to all police interactions.
A warning is necessary only when:
- A person is “taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
- Example: A traffic stop is typically not considered a custodial interrogation.

Miranda v. Arizona is a consolidation of four cases:
- Miranda v. Arizona
- Vignera v. New York
- Westover v. United States
- California v. Stewart
All involved individuals questioned by law enforcement under significant constraints.

Post interrogation, Miranda's confession was admitted in his initial trial.
It was not aligned entirely with the victim’s description.
Upon Supreme Court appeal, his conviction was reversed, and a retrial was ordered without the confessional evidence.
He was convicted again in the retrial and served six years in prison.

“Pleading the 5th” refers to the Fifth Amendment.
Protects individuals from being compelled to be a witness against themselves.
Cannot make statements that could expose them to criminal liability.
Example: If questioned about their whereabouts during a crime, individuals can refuse to answer.

The Sixth Amendment states the right to “the Assistance of Counsel.”
This right ensures individuals can have an attorney during their defense if charged with a crime.
Expanded to include those unable to afford legal representation (Gideon v. Wainwright).
Public defenders are provided in most criminal cases unless exceptions apply.
Minors are also entitled to this right.

Recognizes the intimidating nature of police questioning in custody.
Emphasizes the need to inform individuals of their rights to prevent coercion.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's statement: “It is not admissible to do a great right by doing a little wrong.”
If individuals are not informed before custodial interrogation, their statements cannot be used against them.

After receiving the warning, individuals can knowingly and intelligently waive their rights.

Places a burden on the government to prove a confession is admissible if made without an attorney present.
Dissenting justices expressed concerns over the additional burden on law enforcement, but the majority decision still prevails after 50 years.

Being in custody does not require physical restraints.
Supreme Court defined custody as being “taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
Example scenarios:
- Being asked to come to the police station for questioning.
- Perception of lack of freedom to leave.

Traffic stops generally do not require Miranda warnings as motorists retain some freedom.
Officers can ask questions regarding insurance without requiring a warning.

Courts assess duration and location of questioning.
Brief questioning like in a traffic stop typically does not fall under Miranda, while prolonged questioning in a controlled environment usually does.

Answering questions does not constitute an automatic waiver of rights.
Individuals can assert their right to counsel or the right to remain silent at any time during questioning.
Under Miranda, interrogation must cease once a person requests an attorney, but prior statements may still be admissible.