MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
759
Petitioner 
Miranda
Respondent 
Arizona
Consolidation 
California v. Stewart, No. 584
Vignera v. New York, No. 760
Westover v. United States, No. 761
Advocates
(argued the cause for Miranda, No. 759)
(argued the cause for Arizona, No. 759)
(argued the cause for California, No. 584)
(argued the cause for Stewart, No. 584)
(argued the cause for Vignera, No. 760)
(argued the cause for New York, No. 760)
(argued the cause for Westover, No. 761)
(Solicitor General, argued the cause for the United States, No. 761)
(by special leave of the Court, argued the cause for the State of New York, as amicus curiae, in all cases)
(by special leave of the Court, argued the cause for the National District Attorneys Association, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance in Miranda and Vignera, and reversal in California)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances, ruled on jointly, in which defendants were questioned "while in custody or otherwise deprived of [their] freedom in any significant way." In Vignera v. New York, the petitioner was questioned by police, made oral admissions, and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel. Similarly, in Westover v. United States, the petitioner was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel. Lastly, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel. In all these cases, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation.

Question 

Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion 
Decision: 5 votes for Miranda, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition." The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.

Cite this Page
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 17 December 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759>.
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759 (last visited December 17, 2014).
"MIRANDA v. ARIZONA," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed December 17, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759.