StMU Research Scholars

Featuring Scholarly Research, Writing, and Media at St. Mary’s University

December 2, 2018

You Have the Right to Read this Article: Miranda v. Arizona

“You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law….” This phrase is heard in many different places in modern culture. Movies, songs, and TV shows use this phrase in police-themed entertainment. However, these Miranda Rights were not always as important as they are today.

Miranda rights were established after Miranda v. Arizona went before the Supreme Court on February 28, 1966. The justices ruled 5-4 in favor of establishing Miranda Rights.1 The Miranda decision established that 5th-amendment protections against self-incrimination extend outside of formal court proceedings. It created devices to protect a suspect from the coercive nature of police interrogation rooms, and it gave the framework of the Miranda Rights used today. The court did not specify how the rights had to be administered, or as it has come to be called, “Mirandizing.”2 These rights seemed appropriate to the Supreme Court justices at the time they were established.

However, the world changes, and questions haven risen about whether they still uphold constitutional protections adequately. That the Miranda Rights have been tried and tested through many cases proves that they have been efficient in upholding constitutional rights. This is also evident because when the Supreme Court had the chance to remove Miranda Rights, they elected not to, instead reaffirming these rights.3

The American Constitution | Courtesy of AF.mil

Since they were established in 1966, Miranda Rights have not dramatically changed. The rights are supposed to provide protective assurances to a suspect in custody charged with a crime. Before Miranda Rights, these protections were in the constitution but were not very specific. For example, the Bill of Rights contains the 5th Amendment which states “No person shall be compelled in any criminal to be a witness against himself,” which gives the right to self-incrimination. However, before Miranda Rights, this right was interpreted by the courts to protect from self-incrimination in the courtroom only. Miranda changed that by extending that right to every situation in which someone may be compelled to incriminate themselves.4

The Miranda Decision also guarantees, “An individual swept from familiar surroundings into police custody, surrounded by antagonistic forces, and subjected to the techniques of persuasion described in the [standard police interrogation manuals] cannot be otherwise than under compulsion to speak.” This means that someone under police custody is immediately put in a state of intimidation, which nullifies any statement acquired during this time. The whole intimidation process contradicted the 5th Amendment Privilege. So, being put in a coercive environment, leading to the production of self-incriminating testimony, was now deemed illegal.5

To prevent this feeling of intimidation and the nullifying of any statement said in a custodial environment, the court established Miranda Rights. These familiar four-part rights include, “the right to remain silent, anything you say in court can and will be used against you in court. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you.” However, the Court did not require an exact method of how to inform a suspect their Miranda Rights. Every police station can distribute these rights how they please. The two most common methods are having the rights read to the suspect or giving them a written statement, which requires them to check off and sign that they understand their rights. After being given their rights, the suspects have the opportunity to waive their rights and communicate with the police, and they also have the right to stop talking to the police at any time. The suspect’s acknowledgement of their rights not only protects the suspect, but also the police officers, by removing liability.6

The Supreme Court Building where the Miranda v. Arizona Case was heard | Courtesy of Wikipedia

In the processing of a criminal, the Miranda Rights in combination with processing paperwork have created the new norm for police officers. For example, in regular standard procedure a police officer may make an arrest and take the suspect into custody. He then must read the suspect his or her Miranda Rights at any time between the arrest and any attempt at an interrogation. Most police officers will state their rights as soon as possible so they can begin questioning. The officer then can ask the suspect to waive their right to have an attorney present during questioning and take down any statement he or she wants to give. However, this waiver must be made intelligently and with full knowledge, and as stated in the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren, “The accused who does not know his rights and therefore does not make a request may be the person who most needs counsel.”7 This procedure is how the court intended Miranda Rights to be used during this case fifty-two years ago. There have been few changes to them since.8

Since 1966, the Supreme Court has heard a few cases regarding Miranda Rights. However, when they heard the case of Dickerson v. United States in 2000, the Court had another colossal decision to make. The Court heard the case because of the 3501 Statute that Congress established, which gave prosecutors the ability to overrule Miranda Rights. This statute was never invoked by prosecutors to win a case in the 33 years it was available, because they knew of its power to undermine Miranda. The Supreme Court took this case because the saw the imbalance between the Miranda Rights and the 3501 Statute. They ruled in favor of Miranda and declared the 3501 Statute unconstitutional. They also stated that Congress cannot pass statutes that undermine the Court’s power to rule on Constitutional Rights.9

These examples show how vital Miranda rights have been to the Criminal Justice System. However, as with every decision made, there are always some complaints. One of the contingencies of Miranda states that confessions cannot be achieved with methods of coercion. Opposers of Miranda Rights believe that the thought process behind what is considered “coercion,” is discretionary.10 Every judge may look at what is considered “coercion” differently. For example, in the case of John W. Hinckley Jr., who was arrested for the attempted murder of President Ronald Reagan, he was taken to a local police station in Washington D.C. for questioning where he was read his Miranda Rights three times in a two-hour period. He proceeded to sign the waiver of rights form after he checked “yes” to understanding his rights. He then said he wanted to talk to the police but wanted to talk to his father’s lawyer in Dallas first. He was then taken to the FBI station where he was read his rights a fourth time where he waived his rights, except talking to the police before consulting a lawyer. He then went on to willfully answer some “background” questions asked by the FBI agents. This “background” information was suppressed by the D.C. District Court, and the appellate court also suppressed this “background” information saying it was in violation of Miranda. In this case, the police officers had no bad intentions of seeking a confession, but it can be understood as to how there are some opposers to Miranda, saying it protects the suspects too much.11

The coercive nature of interrogation room | Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

After seeing how Miranda’s procedures have lasted throughout the years, as well as they were kept, and reaffirmed. These rights not only protect suspects, but they also keep society’s best interests in mind as stated in Moran v. Burbine. This case stated and put in place safeguards to Miranda Rights that prevented a level of overreaching. There is so much the Supreme Court can do to protect against the misuse of a procedure. In the end, Miranda Rights should continue as a fundamental procedure in the American justice system for a very long time. They have been intertwined with police procedure for 52 years now, and if put on trial, the right to remain silent is a constitutional right that cannot be undermined.

  1. Encyclopedia Britannica, July 1998, s.v. “Miranda v. Arizona.”
  2.  Wikipedia, 2018, s.v. “Miranda v. Arizona.
  3.  Sheldon H. Elsen; Arthur Rosett, “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona,” Columbia Law Review 67, no. 4 (April 1967): 649.
  4. Yale Kasmir, “Miranda v. United States,” In The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, 2d ed., edited by K. L. Hall and J.W.Ely Jr., (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009), 225.
  5.  Yale Kasmir, “Miranda v. United States,” In The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, 2d ed., edited by K. L. Hall and J.W.Ely Jr., (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009), 226.
  6. Yale Kasmir, “Miranda v. United States,” In The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, 2d ed., edited by K. L. Hall and J.W.Ely Jr. (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009), 227.
  7. Randy Wagner, Miranda V. Arizona, 1966, (Salem Press, Inc., 2008), 1820.
  8. Ashley G. Blackburn, Miranda v. Arizona (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2009), 526.
  9. Erwin Chemerinsky, “The Court Should Have Remained Silent: Why the Court Erred in Deciding Dickerson v. United States,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 149, no. 1 (2000), 287-288.
  10. George C. Thomas, and Richard A. Leo, “The Effects of Miranda v. Arizona: “Embedded” in Our National Culture?” Crime and Justice 29(2002): 205.
  11. Fred E. Inbau, “Over-Reaction: The Mischief of Miranda v. Arizona,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89, no. 4 (1999): 1449-1452.

Tags from the story

arrest

constitutional rights

court

Miranda Rights

police

politics

Supreme Court

Recent Comments

Christopher Hohman

Nice article. The Miranda rights are a very important part of protecting both suspected criminals and also officers of the law. It was really nice to get the backstory about why these rights are read to criminals, because yes I have heard them quite often stated in popular tv shows. It is good that criminals know that they have rights before they accidentally incriminate themselves or are coerced by law enforcement officers.

reply

11/01/2019

10:15 pm

Ruby Wynn

I enjoyed reading this article. Everyone hears about what the Miranda rights are and the court case that established them, but I had not heard about how they have influenced law enforcement and court cases. I did not know that the Miranda rights could cause information to not be used in court, even if someone confesses to a crime. I do not know if it is better to have protection from self-incrimination, or to be able to convict more criminals through their confessions even if they do not have a lawyer present.

reply

03/02/2019

10:15 pm

Michael Hinojosa

Without a doubt one of the most amazing articles I’ve read on this website! You did an amazing job explaining the whole Miranda vs Arizona issue, especially when put up to comparison with my old history teacher in high school! I truthfully enjoyed reading through this and finally being able to understand just exactly what it is this entire issue was about, I feel like now I know more than I did before, so thank you for that!

reply

05/02/2019

10:15 pm

Isaiah Torres

The right to remain silent has always had a big influence on whether people are incarcerated or not. Many say they don’t want to self incriminate and they want a lawyer, and some even aren’t aware of the rights until their told about them. I’ve always knew the right, and understood how it works, I also knew about the name of the case because they’re also known as the “Miranda Rights.” But it is also cool to read about the history about it. I enjoyed how the article went into detail on the case and to truly understand where it came/originated from.

reply

05/02/2019

10:15 pm

Mariah Garcia

I didn’t know the whole backstory of the Miranda rights, so this article was very informative. Before I read this article, all I knew about the Miranda rights were that they must be said to the person who is getting arrested. So, I definitely was not aware that the Miranda rights had so much influence in the court cases especially with protection against self incrimination. Overall, this was a very interesting article because it allowed me to understand the full extent of the law.

reply

05/02/2019

10:15 pm

Nadia Carrasco

I enjoyed reading this article. Having heard a lot about this case already I still found some information in this article new to me. I find it very clever how the author decided to go about explaining this case. I did not know that the Miranda rights could cause information to not be used in court, even if someone confesses to a crime. I truthfully enjoyed reading through this and finally being able to understand just exactly what it is this entire issue was about. Great piece overall!

reply

12/02/2019

10:15 pm

Christopher Metta Bexar

A very interesting view of the Miranda Rights. It might have included some information on the Miranda case itself as to why it was needed in the first place. The article does explain “lawyering up” as it’s now known ( where the accused shuts up without the presence of his or her lawyer). Though this has been known to backfire on defendants whose lawyers like to plea bargain. Not telling their side has already cost them any sympathy from a jury. Or led to their conviction.

reply

14/02/2019

10:15 pm

Ruben Basaldu

The Miranda Rights are something that I have known about but have never really looked into how these rights came to be. This article was very informative in giving the whole story of how the rights became what they are today. There were things that I did not know about these rights like that they could cause info to not be used in a court case which I thought was really interesting.

reply

15/02/2019

10:15 pm

Uzziyah Cohen

As a former Police Officer, I found this article very informative and well supported. The writer pointed out that the 5th amendment has an application outside of the courtroom “However, before Miranda Rights, this right was interpreted by the courts to protect from self-incrimination in the courtroom only.” This reference to the 5th amendment is essential, as this allows us to protect ourselves by withholding our testimony until we have the benefit of legal counsel. Legal counsel may enable us to avoid incriminating ourselves as well as defending our rights and freedoms.

reply

19/02/2019

10:15 pm

Oscar Ortega

Miranda Rights are very famous, but after reading this article, it becomes apparent that they may be thrown about a bit too lightly in modern culture. Regardless, their history and application in America and their potential uses and drawbacks show that they are both important and interesting, and the article does a fine job of explaining Miranda Rights and their origin, the 5th Amendment, and the various circumstances in which Miranda has been tried and tested and situations where they have been potentially circumvented or removed. Miranda Rights, regardless of their appearances in popular culture, like many laws, have perfectly good reasons for being in place, and the article tells why excellently.

reply

04/03/2019

10:15 pm

1 2

Leave a Reply