Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera v. State of New York Westover v. United States State of California v. Stewart 8212 761, 584
Decision Date | 13 June 1966 |
Docket Number | Nos. 759,s. 759 |
Parties | Ernesto A. MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARIZONA. Michael VIGNERA, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW YORK. Carl Calvin WESTOVER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. Roy Allen STEWART. —761, 584 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
John J. Flynn, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner.
Gary K. Nelson, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent.
Telford Taylor, New York City, for State of New York, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. (Also in Nos. 584, 760, 761 and 762)
Duane R. Nedrud, for National District Attorneys Ass'n, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. (Also in Nos. 760, 762 and 584)
Victor M. Earle, III, New York City, for petitioner.
William I. Siegel, Brooklyn, for respondent.
F. Conger Fawcett, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Sol. Gen. Thurgood Marshall, for respondent.
Gorden Ringer, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
William A. Norris, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
[Amicus Curiae intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which accure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.
We dealt with certain phases of this problem recently in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). There, as in the four cases before us, law enforcement officials took the defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The police did not effectively advise him of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult with his attorney. Rather, they confronted him with an alleged accomplice who accused him of having perpetrated a murder. When the defendant denied the accusation and said 'I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it,' they handcuffed him and took him to an interrogation room. There, while handcuffed and standing, he was questioned for four hours until he confessed. During this interrogation, the police denied his request to speak to his attorney, and they prevented his retained attorney, who had come to the police station, from consulting with him. At his trial, the State, over his objection, introduced the confession against him. We held that the statements thus made were constitutionally inadmissible.
This case has been the subject of judicial interpretation and spirited legal debate since it was decided two years ago. Both state and federal courts, in assessing its implications, have arrived at varying conclusions.1 A wealth of scholarly material has been written tracing its ramifications and underpinnings.2 Police and prose- cutor have speculated on its range and desirability.3 We granted certiorari in these cases, 382 U.S. 924, 925, 937, 86 S.Ct. 318, 320, 395, 15 L.Ed.2d 338, 339, 348, in order further to explore some facets of the problems, thus exposed, of applying the privilege against self-incrimination to in-custody interrogation, and to give concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.
We start here, as we did in Escobedo, with the premise that our holding is not an innovation in our jurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings. We have undertaken a thorough re-examination of the Escobedo decision and the principles it announced, and we reaffirm it. That case was but an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution—that 'No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,' and that 'the accused shall * * * have the Assistance of Counsel' rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing. These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured 'for ages to come, and * * * designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it,' Cohens v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 387, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821).
Over 70 years ago, our predecessors on this Court eloquently stated:
Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 596 597, 16 S.Ct. 644, 646, 40 L.Ed. 819 (1896).
In stating the obligation of the judiciary to apply these constitutional rights, this Court declared in Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 373, 30 S.Ct. 544, 551, 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910):
This was the spirit in which we delineated, in meaningful language, the manner in which the constitutional rights of the individual could be enforced against overzealous police practices. It was necessary in Escobedo, as here, to insure that what was proclaimed in the Constitution had not become but a 'form of words,' Silverthorn Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920), in the hands of government officials. And it is in this spirit, consistent with our role as judges, that we adhere to the principles of Escobedo today.
Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.4 As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.
1.
The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. In each, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Aversa
...burden of proving that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right against self-incrimination. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629-30, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the In order to show that the de......
-
Cobb v. Wyrick
...of the house and entered. Petitioner was arrested without a warrant and was apprised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The officers then proceeded to "search" the house and the premises. Deputy Sheriff Dutton retrieved spent and liv......
-
Bucio v. Sutherland
...that he had struck the baby with a metal bar and choked him around the neck (Id.). After hearing that story, the detective read Bucio his Miranda rights and Bucio signed a statement reflecting the story Bucio was indicted by grand jury of one count of felony murder and one count of child en......
-
People v. Ashford
...he was not admonished, nor did he expressly waive his right to have counsel present, as required by Miranda v. State of Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. According to Turner, the conversation was initiated by defendant. Even under the interpretation of the evidence......
-
Grace Under Pressure: Fifteen Steps You Should Take to Manage Successfully a Search of Your Client's Office Pursuant to a Federal Warrant
...circumstances, an agent could question an employee in such a manner as to rise to a "custodial interrogation." See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). The Court defined a "custodial interrogation" as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken ......
-
By 6-3 vote, SCOTUS rules <em>Miranda</em> violations cannot provide a basis for § 1983 suit
...authored the dissent, which was joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. It starts this way: The Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), affords well-known protections to suspects who are interrogated by police while in custody. Those protections derive from the Constit......
-
New SCOTUS Decision Protects Police From Civil Liability For Miranda Violations
...an interrogation conducted by LA County Sheriff’s Deputy Carlos Vega. Vega did not inform Tekoh of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. During Tekoh’s trial, his signed confession was admitted against him, but the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Tekoh then sued Deputy V......
-
Warning You Of Your Right To Remain Silent Is Not A Right After All
...the current generation, has always been the law. Footnotes 1. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 443 (2000). 2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3. See id. at 443-44 ("Whether or not we would agree with Miranda's reasoning and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue ......
-
Tax violations.
...815, 817 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding Miranda-type warning not required because interrogation was not custodial); see also Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966) (requiring warnings only when suspect is subjected to custodial interrogation). But cf United States v. McKee, 192 F.3d 535, 53......
-
How much time am I looking at?': plea bargains, harsh punishments, and low trial rates in southwest border districts
...L. REV. 1098, 1099 n.7 (1990) (citing JERRY L. MASHAW, DUE PROCESS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE 9 (1985)). 126. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (self-incrimination); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (right to counsel); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule......
-
Evidence handed to the IRS criminal division on a "civil" platter: constitutional infringements on taxpayers.
...(33) United States v. Peters, 153 F.3d 445, 447 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1070 (1999); see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966) (explaining that warnings of taxpayers' constitutional rights are required only when a suspect is subjected to custodial (34) TRAC, IRS at Wo......
-
A relational Sixth Amendment during interrogation.
...Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination rather than to vindicate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel"); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966); see also EAFAVE ET AL., supra, [section] 10.1(C), at 532 (discussing derivative right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment); Do......
-
Chapter 681, SB 395 – Custodial interrogation: juveniles
...For these reasons, insituations of custodial interrogation and prior to making a waiverof rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, youth under18 years of age should consult with legal counsel to assist intheir understanding of their rights and the consequences of waivingthose ri......
-
Act 1990, SB 926 – TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 TO PROVIDE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY
...to maintain public order or to make arrests for offenses;(34)(35) "Miranda rights" means the requirement set out in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), for law enforcement officers to clearly inform an accused, including a juvenile taken into custody for a delinquent act or a criminal of......
-
Act 956, SB 776 – CONCERNING JUVENILES, THE JUVENILE CODE, AND JUVENILE JUSTICE
...a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for offenses;(35) "Miranda rights" means the requirement set out in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), for law enforcement officers to clearly inform an accused, including a juvenile taken into custody for a delinquent act or a crimin......
-
Act 1610, SB 108 – TO REQUIRE NOTICE TO PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OF JUVENILES TAKEN INTO CUSTODY; TO REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO NOTIFY JUVENILES OF THEIR RIGHTS BEFORE QUESTIONING
...in the juvenile's best interest or for juveniles in kinship care.(29) "Miranda rights" means the requirement set out in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436(1966), for law enforcement officers to clearly inform an accused, including a juvenile taken into custody for a delinquent act or a criminal......