Editing Miranda warning (section)

==The warnings==
{{More citations needed section|date=May 2012}}
Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:<ref name="leo1996">{{cite journal | last = Leo | first = R.A. | title = The Impact of Miranda Revisited | date = Spring 1996 | volume = 86 | issue = 3 | journal = Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology | pages = 621–692 | publisher = Northwestern University School of Law | doi = 10.2307/1143934 | jstor = 1143934 | url = https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol86/iss3/1|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230513064943/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6874&context=jclc|archive-date=May 13, 2023| url-access = subscription }}</ref><ref name="cornellwex">{{cite web | website = Legal Information Institute | publisher = Cornell Law School | title = Miranda Warning | url = https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/miranda_warning | access-date = 15 November 2022}}</ref>
* You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
* If you give up 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 consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
* If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
* If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
* Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if they understand their rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. Some departments and jurisdictions require that an officer ask "do you understand?" after every sentence in the warning. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver, but in [[Berghuis v. Thompkins]] (2010), the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that police are allowed to interrogate suspects who have invoked or waived their rights ambiguously, and any statement given during questioning prior to invocation or waiving is admissible as evidence.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704875604575280392747737022|work=The Wall Street Journal|first=Jess|last=Bravin|title=Justices Narrow Miranda Rule|date=June 2, 2010|archiveurl=https://archive.today/20230608151521/https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/SB10001424052748704875604575280392747737022|archive-date=June 8, 2023}}</ref> Evidence has in some cases been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.<ref name=einesman>{{cite journal |last=Einesman |first=Floralynn |title=Confessions and Culture: The Interaction of ''Miranda'' and Diversity |journal=[[Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology]] |year=1999 |volume=90 |issue=1 |pages=1–48 [p. 41] |jstor=1144162 |id={{NCJ|182327}} |doi=10.2307/1144162 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol90/iss1/1|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230416224615/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol90/iss1/1|archive-date=April 16, 2023 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

While the exact language above is not required by ''Miranda'', the police must advise the suspect that:
# they have the right to remain silent;
# anything the suspect ''does'' say can and may be used against them in a court of law;
# they have the right to have an attorney present before and during the questioning; and
# they have the right, if they cannot afford the services of an attorney, to have one appointed, at public expense and without cost to them, to represent them before and during the questioning.{{refn|group="Note"|State and Federal courts have consistently rejected challenges to Miranda warnings on grounds that defendant was not advised of additional rights. See, e.g., ''United States v. Coldwell'', 954 F.2d 496(8th Cir. 1992) For example, police are not required to advise a suspect that if he decides to answer questions without an attorney present, he still has the right to stop answering at any time until he talks to an attorney. The Miranda warnings are not part of the arrest procedure. There is no constitutional requirement that the officer advise the defendant of their Miranda rights when they place the defendant under arrest.}}
There is no precise language that must be used in advising a suspect of their ''Miranda'' rights.<ref name="Prysock"/><ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2460742/brown-v-crosby/?q=cites%3A(70239) ''Brown v. Crosby'', 249 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2003).]</ref> The point is that whatever language is used the substance of the rights outlined above must be communicated to the suspect.<ref name=duckworth/><ref>While a "talismanic incantation" of the exact language of the original Miranda warnings is not required, [Bloom and Brodin, Criminal Procedure, 5th ed. (Aspen 2006) 268] deviations and omission can result in suppression of the statement.</ref> The suspect may be advised of their rights orally or in writing.<ref>[https://casetext.com/case/us-v-labrada-bustamante ''U.S. v. Labrada-Bustamante'', 428 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 2005).]</ref> Also, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying, taking into account potential education levels. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.

The Supreme Court has resisted efforts to require officers to more fully advise suspects of their rights. For example, the police are not required to advise the suspect that they can stop the interrogation at any time, that the decision to exercise the right cannot be used against the suspect, or that they have a right to talk to a lawyer before being asked any questions. Nor have the courts required to explain the rights. For example, the standard ''Miranda'' right to counsel states ''You have a right to have an attorney present during the questioning''. Police are not required to explain that this right is not merely a right to have a lawyer present while the suspect is being questioned. The right to counsel includes:
* the right to talk to a lawyer before deciding whether to talk to police,
* if the defendant decides to talk to the police, the right to consult with a lawyer before being interrogated,
* the right to answer police only through an attorney.<ref>Gregory Declue, [https://web.archive.org/web/20200727025212/http://www.aele.org/law/2009all08/2009-08MLJ501.pdf Oral Miranda warnings: A checklist and a model presentation], ''The Journal of Psychiatry & Law'' (2007) at 421.</ref>

===Circumstances triggering the ''Miranda'' requisites===
The circumstances triggering the ''Miranda'' safeguards, i.e. ''Miranda'' warnings, 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. Suspects in "custody" who are about to be interrogated must be properly advised of their ''Miranda'' rights—namely, the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination (and, in furtherance of this right, the right to counsel while in custody). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel means that the suspect has the right to consult with an attorney before questioning begins and have an attorney present during the interrogation. The Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination is the right to remain silent—the right to refuse to answer questions or to otherwise communicate information.

The duty to warn only arises when police officers conduct custodial interrogations. The Constitution does not require that a defendant be advised of the ''Miranda'' rights as part of the arrest procedure, or once an officer has probable cause to arrest, or if the defendant has become a suspect of the focus of an investigation. Custody and interrogation are the events that trigger the duty to warn.

===Use in various U.S. state jurisdictions===
[[File:Fugitive felon life magazine.jpg|thumb|Police detectives read the ''Miranda'' rights to a criminal suspect]]
Some jurisdictions provide the right of a juvenile to remain silent if their parent or guardian is not present. Some departments in [[New Jersey]], [[Nevada]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Alaska]] modify the "providing an attorney" clause as follows:

{{Blockquote|We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.}}

Even though this sentence may be somewhat ambiguous to some laypersons, who can, and who ''have'' actually interpreted it as meaning that they will not get a lawyer until they confess and are arraigned in court, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of it as an accurate description of the procedure in those states.<ref name=duckworth>''[[Duckworth v. Eagan]]'', {{ussc|492|195|1989}} (upholding use of sentence by [[Hammond, Indiana]] police).</ref>

In [[Texas]], [[New Mexico]], [[Arizona]], and California—the four states that border Mexico—suspects who are not United States citizens are given an additional warning:<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hUrRoq5_sb8C&q=Miranda+Warning+If+you+are+not+a+United+States+citizen%2C+you+may+contact+your+country%27s+consulate+prior+to+any+questioning.&pg=PA19 |title=Police and Law Enforcement – Google Books |date=May 3, 2011 |access-date=2014-07-09|isbn=9781412978590 |last1=Chambliss |first1=William J. |publisher=SAGE Publications }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Price |first1=Anna |title=Research Guides: Miranda v. Arizona: The Rights to Justice (March 13, 1963 – June 13, 1966): Overview |url=https://guides.loc.gov/miranda-v-arizona/overview |website=guides.loc.gov |publisher=Library of Congress |access-date=10 June 2023 |language=en}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning.}}

After issuance of Miranda warnings, the police may ask waiver questions. Common waiver questions, which may be included on a written warning card or document, are,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Inbau |first1=Fred E. |title=Over-Reaction--The Mischief of Miranda v. Arizona |journal=Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology |date=Summer 1982 |volume=73 |issue=2 |page=802|doi=10.2307/1143119 |jstor=1143119 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6317&context=jclc |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

{{Blockquote|Question 1: Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you?

Question 2: Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?}}

An affirmative answer to both of the above questions waives the rights. If the suspect responds "no" to the first question, the officer is required to re-read the ''Miranda'' warning, while saying "no" to the second question invokes the right at that moment; in either case the interviewing officer or officers cannot question the suspect until the rights are waived.

Generally, when defendants invoke their [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify or submit to cross-examination at trial, the prosecutor cannot indirectly punish them for the exercise of a constitutional right by commenting on their silence and insinuating that it is an implicit admission of guilt.<ref>''[[Griffin v. California]]'', {{ussc|380|609|1965}}.</ref> Since ''Miranda'' rights are simply a judicial gloss upon the Fifth Amendment which protects against coercive interrogations, the same rule also prevents prosecutors from commenting about the post-arrest silence of suspects who invoke their ''Miranda'' rights immediately after arrest.<ref>''[[Wainwright v. Greenfield]]'', {{ussc|474|284|1986}}.</ref> However, neither the Fifth Amendment nor ''Miranda'' extend to ''pre-arrest'' silence, which means that if a defendant takes the witness stand at trial (meaning he just waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent), the prosecutor can attack his credibility with his pre-arrest silence (based on his failure to immediately turn himself in and confess to the things he voluntarily testified about at trial).<ref>''[[Jenkins v. Anderson]]'', {{ussc|447|231|1980}}.</ref>

Under the [[Uniform Code of Military Justice]], Article 31<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/831- Article 31].</ref> provides for the right against compelled self-incrimination. Interrogation subjects under Army jurisdiction must first be given Department of the Army Form 3881, which informs them of the charges and their rights, and the subjects must sign the form. The United States Navy and United States Marine Corps require that all arrested personnel be read the "rights of the accused" and must sign a form waiving those rights if they so desire; a verbal waiver is not sufficient.

It is unclear whether a ''Miranda'' warning—if spoken or in writing—could be appropriately given to [[disability|disabled persons]]. For example, "the right to remain silent" means little to a [[deaf]] individual and the word "constitutional" may not be understood by people with only an elementary education.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Obstacles Faced by Deaf People in the Criminal Justice System|journal=American Annals of the Deaf|volume=150 |issue=3 |pages=495–516 |year=2005|doi=10.1353/aad.2005.0036|first1=McCay |last1=Vernon |first2=Katrina R. |last2=Miller|pmid=16212018 |s2cid=23119598 |url=https://ncrtm.ed.gov/sites/default/files/library/708/J305.1503.01E.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230713180700/https://ncrtm.ed.gov/sites/default/files/library/708/J305.1503.01E.pdf|archive-date=July 13, 2023}}</ref> In one case, a deaf murder suspect was kept at a therapy station until he was able to understand the meaning of the ''Miranda'' warning and other judicial proceedings.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Deaf Murderers: Clinical and Forensic Issues |journal=Behavioral Sciences & the Law|volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=495–516 |year=1999 |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199910/12)17:4<495::AID-BSL361>3.0.CO;2-6 |first1=McCay |last1=Vernon |first2=Annie G. |last2=Steinberg |first3=Louise A. |last3=Montoya|pmid=10653997 }}</ref>