Title: Miranda warning - Wikipedia
Headings: Miranda
warning

Miranda warning
Contents
Origin and development of Miranda rights
The warnings
Circumstances triggering the Miranda requisites
Use in various U.S. state jurisdictions
The six rules
1. Evidence must have been gathered.
2. The evidence must be testimonial.
3. The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody.
4. The evidence must have been the product of interrogation.
5. The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents.
6. The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.
Application of the prerequisites
Waiver
Assertion
Exceptions
Public safety exception
Consequences of violation
Procedural requirements
Related doctrines
Massiah Doctrine
Commencement of adversarial criminal proceedings
Deliberate elicitation of information from the defendant by governmental agents
Miranda and Massiah compared
The voluntariness standard
State constitutional challenges
State statutory challenges
Confusion regarding use
Exemption for interrogations conducted by undercover agents
Report of warnings being given to detainees in Afghanistan
Equivalent rights in other countries
See also
Notes
References
Further reading
External links

Content: Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time. The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law. Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements as evidence against them in a criminal trial. Contents
1 Origin and development of Miranda rights
2 The warnings
2.1 Circumstances triggering the Miranda requisites
2.2 Use in various U.S. state jurisdictions
3 The six rules
3.1 Application of the prerequisites
4 Waiver
5 Assertion
6 Exceptions
6.1 Public safety exception
7 Consequences of violation
7.1 Procedural requirements
9 Confusion regarding use
9.1 Exemption for interrogations conducted by undercover agents
9.2 Report of warnings being given to detainees in Afghanistan
10 Equivalent rights in other countries
11 See also
12 Notes
13 References
14 Further reading
15 External links
Origin and development of Miranda rights
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Border Patrol agent reading the Miranda rights to a suspect
The concept of " Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for armed robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a young woman. Miranda was subsequently retried and convicted, based primarily on his estranged ex-partner, who had been tracked down by the original arresting officer via Miranda's own parents, suddenly claiming that Miranda had confessed to her when she had visited him in jail.