June 13, 1966 – The Supreme Court Decides Miranda v. Arizona

In Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 1966), the Court addressed the question of what restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for a 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 accrue that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.”

Ernesto Miranda was questioned by police officers who obtained a confession from him which was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the conviction.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing the opinion for the 5-4 decision, concluded that the defendant’s interrogation had violated the Fifth Amendment. Protecting the Fifth Amendment privilege, he wrote, requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody.

Only after these warnings were given, could a defendant knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. Evidence obtained as a result of interrogation was not to be used against a defendant at trial unless the prosecution demonstrated the warnings were given, and knowingly and intelligently waived.

On June 23, 2022, a more conservative Supreme Court backtracked (in the words of the ACLU) on Miranda in Vega v. Tekoh. In Vega, the Court held 6-3 that an individual who is denied Miranda warnings and whose compelled statements are introduced against them in a criminal trial cannot sue the police officer who violated their rights, even where a criminal jury finds them not guilty of any crime. Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented.