MIRANDA RIGHTS

The history of the Miranda Rights

The history of the Miranda Rights

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 694 (1966) has proved to be one of the most controversial in the history of the High Court. This decision changed police practice in every state and municipality. Police must inform suspects in their custody that they have the right to remain silent and to consult with an attorney. If the police fail to give these Miranda warnings before interrogating a suspect, any information they obtain will be barred as evidence at trial.[1]

Ernesto Miranda was arrested on suspicion of rape in 1963 at his home in Phoenix. Arizona and brought to a police station where he was identified by the victim in a lineup. Two police officers interrogated him for two hours before Miranda confessed to the crime. At no time did the police tell him had the right to consult with an attorney before making his statement. Nevertheless, the form on which he wrote and signed his confession stated that he had made voluntarily confessed and that he had made the statement with full knowledge of his legal rights. Based on the confession, Miranda was convicted of sexual assault andkidnapping and sentenced to prison.[2]

The Supreme Court looked at the case in the context of recent rulings where it had stated that a person in custody must be allowed to meet with an attorney if the person requests it. The Court had also ruled inadmissible any confession that was produced in violation of this right. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, also sought to place the Court's decision in historical context by describing the way some police officers and departments handled interrogations. Since the Wickersham Commission in the 1930s popularized the term “third degree,” the public was aware that police sometimes used coercion and violence to extract confessions. However, Warren proceeded to list various techniques that police commonly used that were unconstitutional. Though the Court wanted to avoid painting all police departments with this brush, the opinion made clear that the illegal extraction of confessions was not an isolated problem.[3]

Chief Justice Warren devoted the heart of the decision to the announcement of the now familiar Miranda warnings. This was a unique action, as courts do not direct law enforcement officers to follow a script that the court has prepared. The court directed every officer in the United States to give a suspect in custody four warnings before seeking to interrogate the suspect. The warnings state (1) You have the right to remain silent; (2) Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; (3) You have the right to an attorney; and (4) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. The warnings provide basic avenues of inquiry for a court evaluating the “voluntariness” of a confession.[4]

The Court wanted to put teeth into its ruling to make sure police departments followed the new procedure. Therefore, the sanction for failing to deliver a Miranda ...