Miranda v Arizona

Miranda v Arizona, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1966, held that statements made by a suspect during custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless the suspect was first informed of the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against them, the right to consult an attorney, and the right to have an attorney appointed if they cannot afford one. Ernesto Miranda had confessed to kidnapping and rape after two hours of police questioning without being told of these rights; the Court, in a 5 to 4 opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires these procedural safeguards to counter the inherently coercive pressure of custodial interrogation. The resulting warnings, now universally known as Miranda rights or Miranda warnings, became one of the most recognized pieces of law in American popular culture, repeated in television and film long after most viewers could name the case that produced them. The decision was controversial from the start and remains debated as a matter of policy, but the Supreme Court reaffirmed its constitutional status in Dickerson v United States (2000), rejecting a congressional attempt to overrule it by ordinary statute.