Ernesto Miranda was a criminal and loser. But, his name is embedded in what became a constitutional right for everyone.
On this date fifty years ago, in a landmark 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that any statements made by a suspect are admissible only if the suspect was informed of the right to an attorney before and during questioning and had a right against self-incrimination, and that the suspect not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). What resulted is what is now known as the “Miranda Warning.”
Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion, which articulated what is required of police before questioning anyone they interrogate.
Almost immediately after the decision the hand-wringing started.
In 1968 Congress passed a law in an attempt to overrule Miranda (18 U.S.C. § 3501). It directed federal trial judges to admit statements of criminal defendants if they were made voluntarily, without regard to whether he had received the Miranda warnings. Because the law was an act of Congress, it applied only to federal criminal proceedings and criminal proceedings in the District of Columbia. This law was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
Miranda has been the impetus for numerous cases over time.
- Gilbert v. California (1968): The right to counsel must be provided during the traditional lineup procedure used to identify suspects
- Orozco v. Texas (1969): The Miranda warning is required even if the interrogation occurs in the defendant's house, rather than a police station
- Harris v. New York (1971): When a defendant makes statements prior to being read his Miranda rights (being "Mirandized"), although prosecutors cannot use the statements as direct evidence, they can still use the statements to challenge the truthfulness of the defendant's testimony at trial.
- Kirby v. Illinois (1972): The right to counsel must be provided during the traditional lineup procedure only when formal criminal charges have already been filed against a defendant
- Michigan v. Tucker (1974): When a defendant reveals the name of a witness prior to being Mirandized, the witness identified in the statement can still testify against the defendant.
- Oregon v. Hass (1975): Statements obtained in violation of Miranda could still be considered valid at trial, for the limited purpose of impeaching a suspect's credibility.
- Edwards v. Arizona (1981): Once a suspect has requested counsel, a police officer cannot approach the suspect again to ask him to waive his Miranda rights
- NY v. Quarles (1984) : If a suspect makes a spontaneous statement prior to being Mirandized, it is still valid in trial. The purpose of this exception is to protect public safety; the evidence is valid if the officer is questioning the suspect in order to ensure that the public is not in danger.
- Oregon v. Elstad (1985) : Even if police fail to initially Mirandize a suspect, a statement can still be used if the rights are later given, waived, and a new statement provided.
- Illinois v. Perkins (1990) : The Miranda warning is not required before an undercover agent asks questions to a suspect that could result in incriminiating statements. It is only required before custodial interrogations.
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) : The Miranda warning is not required before an officer asks a suspect routine booking questions, such as the suspect's name or height. These questions are simply part of the police booking routine.
- Dickerson v. United States (2000): Despite the many modifications to the verdict, many critics of Miranda continued to argue that it was not constitutionally based. The Miranda decision was in danger of being overruled, but the court ruled that it could not be invalidated. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, in the majority opinion, that "This Court declines to overrule Miranda...[It] has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture."
- Missouri v. Seibert (2004): Police may not "get around" the Miranda decision by questioning a suspect prior to reading the suspect his Miranda rights, then getting the suspect to confess again afterward.
- United States v. Patane (2004): When a suspect makes a statement prior to being Mirandized, physical evidence that was obtained from this statement is still valid at trial.
Even in recent times there have been attempts to weaken Miranda.
In 2010 the Court held 5-4 that unless and until the suspect actually stated that he was relying on that right, his subsequent voluntary statements could be used in court. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).
In 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to defendants who simply decide to remain mute during questioning. They must explicitly invoke Miranda. Salinas v. Texas 570 U.S. ___ (2013).
Detractors of Miranda have asserted that it effectively handcuffs law enforcement. I disagree. Over the course of fifty years Miranda has become a fixture in this country. Most anyone being questioned by law enforcement are aware of Miranda. While there will continue to be challenges to Miranda and, in come cases, subterfuge used in gaining confessions, the fact remains that Miranda is a fundamental constitutional right.
Just one day more...
