Miranda v. Arizona [1966]

384 U.S. 436 (1966) · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

criminal law and procedurecriminal law and procedureconstitutional law

Issue

What safeguards are required before custodial interrogation?

Held

Warnings are required to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Exam use

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Summary

Defines the familiar Miranda warning framework.

Facts

Suspects made statements during custodial interrogation without warnings about rights.

Issue

What safeguards are required before custodial interrogation?

Held

Warnings are required to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

Before custodial interrogation, police must advise suspects of silence, counsel, and waiver rights.

Reasoning

Custodial interrogation is inherently coercive without clear notice of rights and waiver.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) strengthens a criminal law and procedure answer because the case reflects the principle that Before custodial interrogation, police must advise suspects of silence, counsel, and waiver rights. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as What safeguards are required before custodial interrogation? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Significance

Defines the familiar Miranda warning framework.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Sources