Does the Fifth Amendment require police to inform suspects of their rights before questioning them while in custody?

Ernesto Miranda, 23, was arrested for kidnapping and rape in Arizona. He underwent a two-hour interrogation without being informed of his right to an attorney, which resulted in a written confession. In New York, Michael Vignera was arrested for robbery and confessed during questioning without being advised of his rights. Carl Calvin Westover was initially arrested by local police, interrogated, and then transferred to FBI custody. The FBI conducted further questioning, obtaining signed confessions from Westover. Roy Allen Stewart was arrested in California for a series of purse-snatch robberies that led to a death. He was held for five days and subjected to nine interrogation sessions before confessing.

These four cases, all involving custodial interrogations where the suspects were not informed of their rights, were consolidated by the Court for review. In each instance, law enforcement obtained confessions from the suspects without explicitly advising them of their right to remain silent or their right to have an attorney present during questioning.

Miranda and three other defendants were convicted in separate cases involving custodial confessions. Miranda's conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Arizona. Vignera's conviction was affirmed by both the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals in New York. Westover's federal court conviction was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In contrast, Stewart's conviction was reversed by the California Supreme Court, which ruled he should have been informed of his rights. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari for all four cases to address the constitutional issues surrounding custodial interrogations.

(Warren, C.J.)

Yes. The Fifth Amendment requires law enforcement to provide specific warnings before conducting custodial interrogations. These warnings are necessary to protect the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in the inherently coercive environment of police custody. The custodial setting creates psychological pressures that work to undermine an individual's will to resist and compel them to speak where they would not otherwise do so freely. To safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege, suspects must be clearly informed of their rights before questioning. This includes the right to remain silent, the warning that anything said can be used as evidence, the right to have an attorney present during interrogation, and the right to appointed counsel if they cannot afford one. These prophylactic measures are required to ensure that any waiver of these rights is knowing and voluntary. The warnings serve to make the individual more acutely aware that they are faced with a phase of the adversary system and not just a benign questioning environment. Without these procedural safeguards to secure the privilege against self-incrimination, no statements obtained from a defendant during custodial interrogation may be used as evidence. This bright-line rule provides clear guidance for law enforcement and courts to follow. It strikes the proper balance between the government's need for effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights in the criminal justice process.

Dissent (Clark, J.) The Court's decision goes too far and lacks support from the Constitution or precedent. The convictions in Miranda, Vignera, and Westover should be affirmed. This ruling imposes unnecessary constraints on law enforcement and fails to strike the proper balance between individual rights and effective crime prevention.

Dissent (Harlan, J.) This decision represents poor constitutional law and will have harmful consequences. The majority's interpretation is a strained reading of history and precedent. The new rules imposed by the Court lack proper constitutional foundation and risk hampering legitimate law enforcement efforts. The balance between individual rights and societal needs has been improperly shifted.

Dissent (White, J.) The Fifth Amendment does not support the Court's new rules. This decision will have significant negative impacts on law enforcement and crime prevention. The majority has overstepped its bounds, creating requirements not grounded in constitutional text or precedent. The ruling unnecessarily hampers police investigations and may impede the pursuit of justice.