Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Almost everyone knows the Miranda warnings. Almost no one knows that four justices dissented.
General information, education, and entertainment only, not legal advice. Supreme Dicta is produced by AVR LLC. Watching, reading, signing up, or contacting Supreme Dicta does not create an attorney-client relationship, and AVR LLC does not provide legal services through this site or channel. For advice about your situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. Full disclaimer.
Quotations are from the official U.S. Reports, a public court record; page numbers are given so you can check them.
The case at a glance
- Citation
- 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
- Decided
- June 13, 1966
- Opinion of the Court
- Chief Justice Warren
- Dissents
- Justice Harlan (joined by Stewart and White); Justice White (joined by Harlan and Stewart); Justice Clark
- Vote in Miranda's own case
- 5–4 (by the lineup; the opinion itself does not state a count)
- Follow-up
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), 7–2
Majority vs. dissent, side by side
Is police-station questioning itself a kind of compulsion?
Majority
Yes. "The very fact of custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty and trades on the weakness of individuals." A person "swept from familiar surroundings into police custody" "cannot be otherwise than under compulsion to speak." (384 U.S. at 455, 461)
Dissent
No. The Fifth Amendment "has never been thought to forbid all pressure to incriminate one's self" (Harlan). Nothing justified presuming that "the very first response to the very first question" after arrest is "the product of an overborne will" (White). (384 U.S. at 512, 535)
What rule should govern confessions?
Majority
Warnings before any questioning: the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used in court, the right to a lawyer, and an appointed lawyer if the suspect cannot afford one. Without the warnings and a valid waiver, the statements can't be used. (384 U.S. at 479)
Dissent
Keep the case-by-case due process test, which Harlan called "an adequate tool for coping with confessions." Clark would treat missing warnings as one factor in the "totality of circumstances," with the State proving the confession was voluntary. (384 U.S. at 503, 505)
Will the rule stop abusive interrogations?
Majority
Interrogation manuals of the era taught officers to "persuade, trick, or cajole" suspects out of their rights. Without safeguards, "no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice." (384 U.S. at 455, 458)
Dissent
Not the real abuses: "Those who use third-degree tactics and deny them in court are equally able and destined to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers." The goal, Harlan said, was "voluntariness with a vengeance." (384 U.S. at 505)
What does it cost?
Majority
Miranda's typed statement that he confessed "with full knowledge of my legal rights" "does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights." His conviction was reversed. (384 U.S. at 492, 499)
Dissent
"In some unknown number of cases the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets" (White). A "strict constitutional specific inserted at the nerve center of crime detection may well kill the patient" (Clark). (384 U.S. at 500, 542)
What happened next
Arizona retried Miranda, and in 1969 the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on retrial (State v. Miranda, 104 Ariz. 174).
Two years after Miranda, Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which tried to make voluntariness the only test for admitting a confession.
In Dickerson v. United States (2000), Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for seven justices that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively," and that the warnings "have become part of our national culture." Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, calling it "not a reaffirmation of Miranda, but a radical revision" of it.
(530 U.S. at 432, 435, 443–445)
Chapters
Short on time? The 60-second version
The 4 justices who said no to "You have the right to remain silent"
Common questions
Do police have to read you your rights?
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that before a custodial interrogation, a suspect must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in court, that he has the right to an attorney, and that one will be appointed if he cannot afford one. This page is general information about that decision, not legal advice about any specific situation.
What happens if the warnings are not given?
Under Miranda, unless the prosecution shows the required warnings and a valid waiver, statements obtained from the custodial interrogation cannot be used against the defendant in court. Later, in Dickerson v. United States (2000), the Court held that Miranda is a constitutional rule Congress may not supersede by statute. This is a summary of those holdings, not advice about a particular case.
Was Miranda a close vote?
Yes. Four justices dissented in Miranda's own case, so the Court divided five to four. The dissenters argued that the new rules went beyond the Fifth Amendment and would cost reliable confessions. The episode lays out both sides from the opinions.
Did Miranda walk free after the Supreme Court ruling?
No. The Court reversed his conviction because of the interrogation. Arizona tried him again, and in 1969 the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed a conviction on retrial. The famous warnings still come from the 1966 decision.
Answers summarize this episode for general information only, not legal advice. Full disclaimer.
Get the next case by email
One email when a new case is out. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
We use your email only to send Supreme Dicta updates. See our privacy policy. Signing up does not create an attorney-client relationship; this is general information, education, and entertainment, not legal advice. Disclaimer.
Read the opinions
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966): official U.S. Reports scan (PDF) (Library of Congress)
- Miranda v. Arizona: catalog record (Library of Congress)
- Miranda v. Arizona: full text (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000): official U.S. Reports scan (PDF) (Library of Congress)
- Dickerson v. United States: full text (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School)
Full transcript
Read every word of the episode, with page-cited sources for each quote.
General information, education, and entertainment only, not legal advice. Supreme Dicta is produced by AVR LLC. Watching, reading, signing up, or contacting Supreme Dicta does not create an attorney-client relationship, and AVR LLC does not provide legal services through this site or channel. For advice about your situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. Full disclaimer.
Quotations are from the official U.S. Reports, a public court record; page numbers are given so you can check them.