A typical Miranda Warning:
Click on the case titles to link to the full case decision.
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)-The Miranda case is a very important case to law enforcement. The United States Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given. The warning requirements only apply when a person is in custody and interrogated. In this case, "custody" is an arrest or when freedom is significantly deprived to be equivalent to an arrest. "Interrogation" is the use of words or actions to elicit an incriminating response from an average person.
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 US 610 (1976)-If a defendant is given his Miranda rights and elects to remain silent, his silence cannot be used in court to impeach him.
Dunaway v. New York, 442 US 200 (1979)-The involuntary seizing of a person from his home without probable cause and compelled him to go to the station for interrogation violated the person's Fourth Amendment rights. The Miranda rights advisory does not overcome the taint of the illegal arrest. Factors that should be considered in determining whether a confession was obtained by exploiting an illegal arrest are:
temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession
presence of intervening circumstances
purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct
California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983)-Absent arrest or "in custody" type treatment, "Miranda warnings are not required simply because the questioning takes place in a coercive environment in the station house or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect."
New York v. Quarles, 467 US 649 (1984)-Public safety exception to the Miranda ruling. Quarles raped a woman at gun point. He was located in a supermarket. The police chased, caught and arrested him in the store. The officer found he was wearing an empty gun holster. The officer asked Quarles where the gun was without reading him his rights. The USSC ruled that the police had an immediate public safety reason to recover the gun.
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 US 298 (1985)-"Absent deliberate coercion or improper tactics in obtaining an unwarned statement, a careful and thorough administration of Miranda warnings cures the condition that rendered the unwarned statement inadmissible". For further information see the related case of Missouri v. Seibert.
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 US 292 (1990)-The Miranda Warnings are not required when an incarcerated person speaks freely to another inmate who is actually an undercover officer.
Davis v. United States, 512 US 452 (1994)-A suspect must make an unequivocal request for a lawyer in order to effectively invoke his right to counsel.
US v. Lackey, 334 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir., 2003)-Police can ask an arrested person if he is in possession of weapons without giving the Miranda warnings. This is a "public safety" exception.
Missouri v. Seibert, 000 US 02-1731 (2004)-This case further clarified the ruling on Elstad. In the Seibert case, the officer deliberately withheld the Miranda warnings. He then systematically interrogated the suspect at the station and obtained a confession to Murder I. The suspect was then read the Miranda warnings and questioned again. The suspect was confronted with the pre-warning statements. The suspect confessed again. The officer did not advise the suspect that her earlier statements could not be used against her. The confession was inadmissible. The court said that Elstad applies when inadvertent pre-warning statements are made during brief questioning in the field. It does not apply to deliberate and systematic interrogations done in a manner to circumvent the purpose of the Miranda warnings.