What are the Miranda Rights? – [Definition, Explanation and Case Brief]

If you have ever watched any American television show or movie related to police officers, you will be familiar with the rights which a police officer recites before arresting a criminal suspect. These warnings which are called the Miranda Rights or Miranda Warnings contains some basic rights which are constitutional. The Miranda Rights are protected by the 5th and 6th Amendments in the constitution.

Miranda Rights Definition

Miranda Warning is a kind of notification which the police customarily give to the criminal suspects in their custody or a custodial interrogation. The Miranda Rights Case is all about advising the suspects on their rights to remain silent. That is, reminding them that if they choose not to answer any question, it is their right. Besides, if the suspect decides not to provide any information to the law enforcement, it is his or her right. The purpose of the notification is for the preservation of their statements admissibility which they make at the time of their custodial interrogation.

What is the Miranda Warnings?

1. You have the right to remain silent– If a suspect maintains silence; the silence will never be used against them in court. There is a “Pre-Miranda” silence which is the case when the suspect refuses to speak even when the constitutional rights have not been read to him or her. That type of silence is suspect and unusual. However, those who say things like “my lawyer always told me never to make statements if not in his presence, may avoid the bad effects of their refusal to speak up.
2. Whatever you say may be used against you in the court of law– Every suspect has the constitutional right to remain silent during interrogation. However, if you waive that right away, you will have to accept the prospect that whatever statements you made during interrogation may be used against you in court. This part of the law is a bit tricky since the only and binding evidence you can use against the defendant can be the confession. Most defense lawyers are of the opinion that most innocent suspects feel intimidated by their arrest and the preceding questioning. Since they may unwittingly speak to the law enforcement officer without realizing the consequences.
3. You have the right to consult a lawyer before or while you are speaking with the law enforcement officer– This section enables the defendant to have a legal counsel represent him or her during the interrogation. The defendant should be told explicitly that he or she has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have his lawyer present before he or she can answer any question by the police. If during interrogation, a suspects request for an attorney, the entire questioning will stop until the suspect’s lawyer appears.
4. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you by the state free of charge– To ensure that the suspects fully understand their constitutional right, the defendant must be explicitly told that the state can provide him or her a Pro Bono lawyer if they so wish. If the police do not add this section that it is free of charge, the suspect may misunderstand. He or she may think that the whole thing is meaningless.

Any suspect who receives these warning must indicate either in writing or orally that he or she understands the rights before the arrest. Even some jurisdictions like Texas and California goes a step further. It mandates the police officer to ask the suspect if they understand each of the rights recited to them. They will also ask them as they are now aware of their rights if the suspect still wants to talk to them.

It is a relevant decision by the Supreme Court to make sure that the suspect knows and understands these rights. If there is any indication from the suspect that they know and understands the warnings, the language which is used to inform them of their rights, then the interrogation may begin lawfully.

The Origin of Miranda Rights

Miranda Rights originated as a result of the case; Miranda V. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was apprehended for a theft of $8.00 from a bank worker in Arizona. Miranda confessed to the crime of rape, robbery, and kidnapping after interrogated for two hours. However, he was not told that he had the right to remain silent during the interrogation or to a lawyer when he was brought in for the questioning. Since he did not know about the existence of his rights, he confessed to everything. This negligence by the police caused an appeal to Miranda’s conviction. The ruling by the justices was that Miranda’s statements could not be accepted as evidence against him in court because his constitutional rights were not made known to him. Due to this ruling, the police are mandated to warn suspects of their constitutional rights before conducting any interrogation.

These rights are constitutionally binding as the law enforcement must state explicitly due to the case of Miranda V. Arizona. Before the ruling of this case, the courts assume that those under detention are already aware that they have the right to maintain silence. However, the Miranda Rights Amendment states that a suspect has to be told his or her rights explicitly before interrogation.

The Miranda Rights Case did not create new constitutional rights. What it did was to provide more protection to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

When are Miranda Rights not Required?

You may say that Miranda warnings should not apply in a Driving Under the Influence {DUI} cases. In the DUI situation, when a police officer pulls up a driver at the roadside, the questions he or she will ask are; where did you come from now? What is your final destination? How much did you imbibe? These questions are or may be incriminating to the person, but the courts say that Miranda Rights would not or do not apply in this situation. However in any other type of case, especially felonies in Florida State, the court mandates that the police officer should read the Miranda Rights to the suspect before he or she gets a statement from the suspect.