Back تحذير ميراندا Arabic Patanid na Miranda BCL Предупреждението „Миранда“ Bulgarian Belehrung (Recht) German Advertencia Miranda Spanish حقوق میراندا Persian Droits Miranda French אזהרת מירנדה HE मिरैन्डा चेतावनी Hindi Mirandino upozorenje Croatian
.jpg)
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."
The language used in Miranda warnings derives from the Supreme Court's opinion in its Miranda decision.[1] But the specific language used in the warnings varies between jurisdictions,[2] and the warning is deemed adequate as long as the defendant's rights are properly disclosed such that any waiver of those rights by the defendant is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.[3] For example, the warning may be phrased as follows:[4]
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.
The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law.[Note 1] Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not ordinarily use that person's statements as evidence against them in a criminal trial.
- ^ "Miranda v. Arizona". Oyez. Archived from the original on September 5, 2019. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
- ^ Cicchini, Michael D. (2012). "The New Miranda Warning". SMU Law Review. 65 (4): 913–915. Archived from the original on April 15, 2023. Retrieved January 25, 2019.
- ^ Helms, Jeffrey L.; Holloway, Candace L. (2006). "Differences in the Prongs of the Miranda Warnings". Criminal Justice Studies. 19 (1): 77–84. doi:10.1080/14786010600616007. S2CID 144464768.
- ^ "United States v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir.2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1610 (2012)". Google Scholar. Retrieved January 25, 2019.
Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).