‘You Have the Right to Remain Silent’

When officers brought him to a Phoenix, Arizona, police station on March 13, 1963, 22-year-old Ernesto Miranda insisted he had nothing to do with the crime.

Eleven days earlier, 18-year-old Patricia Weir had been kidnapped and taken to the Arizona desert, where she was sexually assaulted. She had provided the police with descriptions that seemed to match Miranda and the car he drove, but she wasn’t able to conclusively identify him in a lineup. After bringing Miranda to the station, police interrogated him for roughly two hours without a lawyer present. After they falsely told him that the victim had identified him, Miranda confessed and was charged with kidnapping and rape.   

Whether that confession was legal, however, became the subject of a lawsuit that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established some of the most important rights for criminal suspects in the United States, including that police must inform them of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney (see “The Miranda Warnings,” below). They’ve been known ever since as Miranda warnings.

“[Miranda] changed the way police went about interrogating people,” says Tracey Maclin, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. “[The police] now had to comply with the Fifth Amendment.”

On March 13, 1963, 22-year-old Ernesto Miranda was brought by officers to a Phoenix, Arizona, police station. He insisted he had nothing to do with the crime.

Eleven days earlier, 18-year-old Patricia Weir had been kidnapped. She was taken to the Arizona desert and sexually assaulted. She had provided the police with descriptions that seemed to match Miranda and the car he drove. But she wasn’t able to conclusively identify him in a lineup. Police interrogated Miranda for roughly two hours without a lawyer present. After they falsely told him that the victim had identified him, Miranda confessed. He was charged with kidnapping and rape.   

Whether that confession was legal, however, became the subject of a lawsuit that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established some of the most important rights for criminal suspects in the United States. These rights include that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney (see “The Miranda Warnings,” below). They’ve been known ever since as Miranda warnings.

“[Miranda] changed the way police went about interrogating people,” says Tracey Maclin, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. “[The police] now had to comply with the Fifth Amendment.”

Prior to Miranda, which was actually four related cases bundled together, most people understood the Fifth Amendment to mean that someone testifying in court has a right to refuse to answer questions from the prosecution or the defense. This was often referred to as “taking the Fifth.” But the language of the Fifth Amendment, which was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, didn’t make clear whether people could also refuse to talk while in police custody. Officers often used that confusion to their advantage, employing violent and intimidating interrogation tactics against suspects—including threatening them and withholding food and water—to get them to speak.

The tactics were widespread in the South, particularly with African Americans and poor, uneducated people, who often didn’t understand their rights. Defense lawyers would later contest such coerced confessions, and judges would be left to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to admit them into evidence during a trial.

Throughout the 1930s and ’40s, the Supreme Court had issued a series of rulings against these practices. Then, in the early 1960s before Miranda, the Court expanded the rights of criminal defendants. This series of rulings made evidence from illegal searches unusable in court, required states to provide lawyers to defendants who couldn’t afford them, and gave suspects the right to a lawyer during police interrogations. The Miranda decision was part of this expansion of criminal suspects’ rights.

“Police were using violence and other coercive practices to get people to confess,” says Anne Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “Miranda was an important step the Supreme Court took to regulate . . . police abuses in the interrogation room.”

Prior to Miranda, most people believed the Fifth Amendment only protected someone testifying in court. People thought “taking the fifth” meant that someone has a right to refuse to answer questions from the prosecution or the defense. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. It didn’t make clear whether people could also refuse to talk while in police custody. Officers often used that confusion to their advantage. They used violent and intimidating interrogation tactics against suspects. They could threaten them or withhold food and water to get them to speak.

These methods were widespread in the South, particularly among African Americans and poor, uneducated people. Defense lawyers would later contest such bullied confessions. Judges would be left to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to admit them into evidence during a trial.

Throughout the 1930s and ’40s, the Supreme Court had issued a series of rulings against these interrogation practices. Then, in the early 1960s before Miranda, the Court expanded the rights of criminal defendants. This series of rulings made evidence from illegal searches unusable in court, required states to provide lawyers to defendants who couldn’t afford them, and gave suspects the right to a lawyer during police interrogations. The Miranda decision was part of this expansion of criminal suspects’ rights.

“Police were using violence and other coercive practices to get people to confess,” says Anne Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “Miranda was an important step the Supreme Court took to regulate . . . police abuses in the interrogation room.”

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that “the decision of the Court represents poor constitutional law and entails harmful consequences for the country at large.”

The ruling was controversial beyond the court too, and it became part of the decade’s intense debates over the balance between individual rights and the authority of law enforcement. Many police officers and prosecutors thought that requiring police to read Miranda warnings would handcuff law enforcement officers, severely limiting their ability to solve crimes. In his successful 1968 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon criticized the Miranda ruling as favoring the rights of criminals over those of victims and police authority.

“There was a lot of public concern about crime in the 1960s,” says Sara Mayeux, a legal historian at Vanderbilt University. “And it was a very contentious time politically, with protests going on about civil rights and the Vietnam War.”

In 1968, Congress tried to weaken Miranda by passing a law that directed federal judges to accept any confessions made “voluntarily,” even if police didn’t read suspects their Miranda rights. But the Department of Justice didn’t vigorously enforce it. A bank robbery suspect eventually challenged that law, and in 2000, his case reached the Supreme Court. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court upheld Miranda in a 7-to-2 decision, asserting that police must read suspects their rights before an interrogation. In his opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the Miranda warnings “have become part of our national culture.”

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote that “the decision of the Court represents poor constitutional law and entails harmful consequences for the country at large.”

The ruling was controversial beyond the court too. It became part of the decade’s intense debates over the balance between individual rights and the authority of law enforcement. Many police officers and prosecutors thought that requiring police to read Miranda warnings would limit their ability to solve crimes. In his successful 1968 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon criticized the Miranda ruling as favoring the rights of criminals over those of victims and police authority.

“There was a lot of public concern about crime in the 1960s,” says Sara Mayeux, a legal historian at Vanderbilt University. “And it was a very contentious time politically, with protests going on about civil rights and the Vietnam War.”

In 1968, Congress tried to weaken Miranda. It passed a law that directed federal judges to accept any confessions made “voluntarily,” even if police didn’t read suspects their Miranda rights. But the Department of Justice didn’t really enforce it. A bank robbery suspect eventually challenged that law. In 2000, his case reached the Supreme Court. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court upheld Miranda in a 7-to-2 decision. They affirmed that police must read suspects their rights before an interrogation. In his opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the Miranda warnings “have become part of our national culture.”

Sixty years after the landmark Miranda ruling, Miranda warnings are such a standard part of police practice that it’s rare to find instances in which police fail to read them to suspects. The warnings have also become such a cliché of TV and movie crime dramas that nearly every American is aware of the right to remain silent. And yet, experts say, roughly 80 percent of suspects waive their Miranda rights, often talking themselves into prison. For young people 18 and under, that number is even higher (see “Know Your Rights,” below).

“It might be that people still don’t fully understand what [the Miranda rights] mean,” Mayeux says. “Even if they’ve been told they theoretically have these rights, it’s a separate question whether people feel confident and empowered to actually exercise them.”

Despite the Supreme Court’s upholding of Miranda in 2000, several other decisions have eroded its protections, experts say. In 1984, the Court established the public safety exception, which allows law enforcement to question suspects without immediately reading them their rights if public safety is threatened. In 2010, the Court ruled that suspects have to explicitly speak up to invoke their Miranda rights. Simply remaining silent isn’t enough to stop an interrogation. In 2022, the Court ruled that people can’t sue law enforcement for violating their Miranda rights.

As for Ernesto Miranda, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, and his case was retried. This time, prosecutors couldn’t mention his confession in court, but a jury again found him guilty. The clincher was testimony from Miranda’s ex-girlfriend, who told the jury that Miranda had confessed to her. The judge sentenced him to 20 to 30 years in prison. He served 11 years before getting out on parole in 1972.

By then, Miranda’s name had achieved notoriety. He profited from it slightly by selling autographed Miranda cards—which police use to read the warnings—for about $2 a piece. But in January 1976, during a poker game at a Phoenix bar, Miranda got into a brawl, was stabbed in the neck and chest, and died.

Police identified two suspects in connection with his killing. Both were read their Miranda rights; both waived them and answered police questions. By the time police got warrants for their arrest, the primary suspect had fled town, and no one was ever brought to justice for Miranda’s murder. However, his name lives on every time a criminal suspect is arrested, handcuffed, and informed of the right to remain silent.

Sixty years after the landmark Miranda ruling, Miranda warnings are a standard part of police practice. It is rare to find times in which police fail to read them to suspects. The warnings have also become such a big part of TV and movie crime dramas that nearly every American is aware of the right to remain silent. And yet, experts say, roughly 80 percent of suspects waive their Miranda rights. They often talk themselves into prison. For young people 18 and under, that number is even higher (see “Know Your Rights,” below).

“It might be that people still don’t fully understand what [the Miranda rights] mean,” Mayeux says. “Even if they’ve been told they theoretically have these rights, it’s a separate question whether people feel confident and empowered to actually exercise them.”

Despite the Supreme Court’s upholding of Miranda in 2000, several other decisions have eroded its protections, experts say. In 1984, the Court established the public safety exception. It allows law enforcement to question suspects without immediately reading them their rights if public safety is threatened. In 2010, the Court ruled that suspects have to clearly speak up to invoke their Miranda rights. Simply remaining silent isn’t enough. In 2022, the Court ruled that people can’t sue law enforcement for violating their Miranda rights.

As for Ernesto Miranda, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction. His case was retried. This time, prosecutors couldn’t mention his confession in court. A jury again found him guilty based on testimony from Miranda’s ex-girlfriend. She told the jury that Miranda had confessed to her. The judge sentenced him to 20 to 30 years in prison. He served 11 years before getting out on parole in 1972.

By then, Miranda’s name had achieved notoriety. He profited from it by selling autographed Miranda cards—which police use to read the warnings—for about $2 a piece. But in January 1976, Miranda got into a fight during a poker game at a Phoenix bar. He was stabbed and died.

Police identified two suspects in connection with his killing. They were read their Miranda rights. Both waived them and answered police questions. By the time police got warrants for their arrest, the primary suspect had fled town. No one was ever brought to justice for Miranda’s murder. However, his name lives on every time a criminal suspect is arrested, handcuffed, and informed of the right to remain silent.