Editing Miranda warning (section)

{{Short description|Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody}}
{{Redirect|You have the right to remain silent|other uses|You Have the Right to Remain Silent (disambiguation){{!}}You Have the Right to Remain Silent}}
{{Italic title|string=Miranda}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2015}}
[[File:Chief Justice Earl Warren - Miranda v. Arizona (1966).jpg|thumb|Page of the manuscript written by Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] regarding the ''Miranda v. Arizona'' decision. This page established the basic requirements of the "''Miranda'' warning".]]

{{Law enforcement in the United States}}

In the United States, the '''''Miranda'' warning''' is a type of notification customarily given by [[Law enforcement in the United States|police]] to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a [[custodial interrogation]]) advising them of their [[right to silence]] and, in effect, protection from [[Self-incrimination clause|self-incrimination]]; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]'s 1966 decision ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'', these rights are often referred to as '''''Miranda'' rights'''. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the [[Admissible evidence|admissibility of their statements]] made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor [[Yale Kamisar]], who subsequently was dubbed "the father of ''Miranda''."

The language used in ''Miranda'' warnings derives from the Supreme Court's opinion in its ''Miranda'' decision.<ref name=Miranda>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759|title=Miranda v. Arizona|website=Oyez|language=en|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190905222214/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759|archive-date=September 5, 2019|access-date=2019-09-23}}</ref> But the specific language used in the warnings varies between jurisdictions,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cicchini |first1=Michael D. |title=The New Miranda Warning |journal=SMU Law Review |date=2012 |volume=65 |issue=4 |pages=913–915 |url=https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1209&context=smulr |access-date=25 January 2019|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230415100634/https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1209&context=smulr|archive-date=April 15, 2023}}</ref> and the warning is deemed adequate as long as the defendant's rights are properly disclosed such that any waiver of those rights by the defendant is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Helms |first1=Jeffrey L. |last2=Holloway |first2=Candace L. |title=Differences in the Prongs of the Miranda Warnings |journal=Criminal Justice Studies |date=2006 |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=77–84 |doi=10.1080/14786010600616007 |s2cid=144464768 }}</ref> For example, the warning may be phrased as follows:<ref>{{cite web |title=''United States v. Plugh'', 648 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir.2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1610 (2012). |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=721002024916368331 |website=Google Scholar |access-date=25 January 2019}}</ref>

<!-- This is quote. Please do not change the language from the original source -->
{{Blockquote|You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 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 quote ends here -->

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 to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] right against compelled self-incrimination. In ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'', the Supreme Court held that the [[admissible evidence|admission]] of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment right to counsel]], through the [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporation]] of these rights into state law.{{#tag:ref|The 2004 United States Supreme Court ruling ''[[Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada]]'' upheld state "[[Stop and Identify statutes|stop-and-identify]]" laws, allowing police in those jurisdictions engaging in a [[Terry stop]] to require biographical information such as name and address, without arresting suspects or providing them Miranda warnings.|group="Note"}} 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 ordinarily use that person's statements as evidence against them in a criminal trial.