Facts The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, …

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them …

In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United …

Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority, concluding that defendant’s interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment. To protect the privilege, the Court reasoned, procedural …

Miranda v. Arizona: Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the …

Arizona reversed an Arizona court’s conviction of Ernesto Miranda on charges of kidnapping and rape.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his constitutional rights.

Miranda’s oral and written confessions are now held inadmissible under the Court’s new rules. One is entitled to feel astonished that the Constitution can be read to produce this result.

Dec 14, 2025 · Understand the Supreme Court's pivotal 1966 decision that codified the protection against self-incrimination during all police custody. The 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. …

Dec 13, 2022 · This list of rights, known as the “Miranda” warning, comes from a 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. In that case, the Supreme Court had to decide under what circumstances …