Editing Miranda warning (section)

==Origin and development of ''Miranda'' rights==
[[File:CBP Border Patrol agent reads the Miranda rights.jpg|thumb|A [[U.S. Customs and Border Protection]] (CBP) [[United States Border Patrol|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 Miranda|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. Miranda's lawyer later confessed that he 'goofed' the case by focusing too much on the constitutional issues (and losing sight of the jury and guilt or innocence).<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=S5y-y-0qpa4C&q=goofed&pg=PA262|title=The Devil's Advocates: Greatest Closing Arguments in Criminal Law|last1=Lief|first1=Michael S.|last2=Caldwell|first2=H. Mitchell|date=2006-08-29|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=9780743246682|language=en}}</ref>

The circumstances triggering the ''Miranda'' safeguards, i.e. ''Miranda'' rights, are "custody" and "interrogation". Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:

{{Blockquote| To summarize, we hold that, when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. }}

From ''Miranda rights'', [[American English]] developed the [[verb]] ''Mirandize'', meaning "read the ''Miranda'' rights to".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |year=2004 |title=Mirandize |encyclopedia=The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company |url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mirandize |access-date=2007-09-18}}</ref>

In ''[[Berkemer v. McCarty]]'' (1984),<ref>{{Cite web |title=Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/420/ |access-date=2023-04-14 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref> the Supreme Court decided that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in ''Miranda'', regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which they are suspected or for which they were arrested.<ref>''[[Berkemer v. McCarty]]'', {{ussc|468|420|1984}}</ref>

Notably, the ''Miranda'' rights need not be read in any particular order, and they need not precisely match the language of the ''Miranda'' case as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed (''[[California v. Prysock]]'', {{ussc|453|355|1981}}<ref name="Prysock">[http://supreme.justia.com/us/453/355/ ''California v. Prysock'', 453 U.S. 355 (1981)].</ref>).

In ''[[Berghuis v. Thompkins]]'' (2010),<ref>{{Cite web |title=Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/370/ |access-date=2023-04-14 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref> the Supreme Court held that unless a suspect expressly states that they are invoking this right, subsequent voluntary statements made to an officer can be used against them in court, and police can continue to interact with (or question) the alleged criminal.

In ''[[Vega v. Tekoh]]'' (2022), the Supreme Court held that police may not be sued for failing to administer ''Miranda'' warnings, and that the remedy for such a failure is the exclusion of the acquired statements at trial.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |author-link=Adam Liptak |date=2022-06-23 |title=Police Officers Can't Be Sued for Miranda Violations, Supreme Court Rules |language= |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/supreme-court-miranda-lawsuits.html |access-date=2022-06-24 |issn=0362-4331|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230105215833/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/politics/supreme-court-miranda-lawsuits.html|archive-date=January 5, 2023}}</ref>