Title: Miranda v. Arizona | Definition, Background, & Facts | Britannica
Headings: Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona
law case
Learn More in these related Britannica articles:

Content: Although suspects could waive their rights to remain silent and to consult an attorney, their waivers were valid (for the purpose of using their statements in court) only if they were performed “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” The Miranda decision was one of the most controversial rulings of the Warren Court, which had become increasingly concerned about the methods used by local police to obtain confessions. Miranda v. Arizona reversed an Arizona court’s conviction of Ernesto Miranda on charges of kidnapping and rape. After being identified in a police lineup, Miranda had been questioned by police; he confessed and then signed a written statement without first having been told that he had the right to have a lawyer present to advise him or that he had the right to remain silent. Miranda’s confession was later used at his trial to obtain his conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution could not use his statements obtained by the police while the suspect was in custody unless the police had complied with several procedural safeguards to secure the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Critics of the Miranda decision argued that the Court, in seeking to protect the rights of individuals, had seriously weakened law enforcement. Later decisions by the Supreme Court limited some of the potential scope of the Miranda safeguards. In 2000 the Supreme Court decided Dickerson v. United States, a case that presented a more conservative Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist an opportunity to overrule Miranda v. Arizona —which, nevertheless, it declined to do.