Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and confessed during police interrogation without being informed of his right to remain silent or to have an attorney present. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires police to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation.

3) Why It Mattered
This case established the now-famous Miranda warnings: the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used in court, and the right to an attorney.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Stronger safeguards for suspects during police interrogations.
• Took Away: The government’s ability to use unwarned confessions in court.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Critics saw it as judicial activism, but the Court was enforcing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to ensure fairness in criminal justice.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
When police arrest you, they must read you your Miranda rights before questioning. If they don’t, your statements may be inadmissible in court.

• Fifth Amendment
• Self-Incrimination
• Right to Counsel
• Criminal Procedure