Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
(1) Facts: Miranda was unaware of his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations.
(2) Issues: The question is whether or not the police is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants?
(3) Rule: The U.S. Supreme Court established a “bright line” rule to govern custodial interrogations, maintaining that they are inherently coercive because: (a) Suspects are held in strange surroundings where they’re not free to leave, and (b) Skilled police officers use unrefined methods to “crack” the will of suspects. The bright-line rule prevents police coercion while still allowing police pressure. During custodial interrogations, police must give suspects the famous four warnings: (a) You have a right to remain silent, (b) Anything you say can and will be used against you in court, (c) You have a right to a lawyer, and (d) If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.
(4) Application: The Supreme Court further explained that the process of interrogation is already intimidating, and the suspect must be read his rights to counteract this intimidation. Then the Court outlined the way in which a suspect must be informed of his rights. This must take place before the suspect is questioned, and an officer doesn't have to do it while placing someone under arrest as long as they don't interrogate the suspect in any way.
(5) Conclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that based on the testimony and admission given, Miranda was obviously never informed of his right to council or to avoid self-incrimination. As a result, the Court reversed the decision and