June 13, 1966

Miranda v. Arizona

Supreme Court decides Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda's signed confession form claimed he knew his rights. The Court held that boilerplate presented after two hours of questioning was no warning at all.

Four cases, one opinion

On 13 June 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Miranda v. Arizona — an opinion that actually resolved four consolidated custodial-interrogation cases from Arizona, New York, California and the federal courts.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a majority joined by Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan Jr. and Abe Fortas. John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart and Byron White dissented; Tom C. Clark dissented in three cases while concurring in the result in California v. Stewart.

The Court reversed the judgments in Miranda, Vignera and Westover, and affirmed California's reversal in Stewart.

What the rule requires

Prosecutors could not use statements resulting from custodial interrogation unless effective safeguards protected the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Absent a fully effective equivalent, a person in custody had to be told before interrogation of the right to remain silent, the possible courtroom use of statements, the right to have counsel present, and the right to appointed counsel if indigent. The prosecution also had to show a knowing and intelligent waiver.

The opinion did not mandate one word-for-word incantation, and it expressly left volunteered statements and general on-the-scene questioning outside the holding.

Miranda did not walk free

The ruling governs admissibility, not arrest procedure. It does not require warnings before every police question — only before custodial interrogation.

Warren answered predictions that warnings would cripple policing by pointing to the FBI, which already warned suspects about silence and counsel.

Ernesto Miranda was not acquitted. Arizona retried him without the confession in 1967 and convicted him again.

Sources

Researched 24 Aug 2026 6 sources not yet audited

How this was checked

Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →