Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court case (1966) in the area of due process of law (see Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment, addition to the U.S. Constitution, adopted 1868. The amendment comprises five sections.

Section 1

Section 1 of the amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens and citizens
..... Click the link for more information. ). The decision reversed an Arizona court's conviction of Ernesto Miranda on kidnapping and rape charges. Identified in a police lineup, Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer; his confession was used at trial. In overturning Miranda's conviction, Chief Justice Earl Warren Warren, Earl, 1891–1974, American public official and 14th Chief Justice of the United States (1953–69), b. Los Angeles. He graduated from the Univ. of California Law School in 1912. Admitted (1914) to the bar, he practiced in Oakland, Calif.
..... Click the link for more information. held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before questioning, a person must be given what is now known as a "Miranda warning": that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney. The Miranda decision was one of the most controversial of the Warren Court. Under Chief Justices Warren Burger Burger, Warren Earl, 1907–95, American jurist, fifteenth Chief Justice of the United States (1969–86), b. St. Paul, Minn. After receiving his law degree in 1931 from St.
..... Click the link for more information. and William Rehnquist Rehnquist, William Hubbs (rĕn`kwĭst), 1924–2005, American public official, chief justice of the U.S.
..... Click the link for more information. (who as a legal spokesman for the Nixon administration had proposed that Miranda be overturned), a Supreme Court more friendly to police operations limited its scope several times, although failing to reverse its central holding, and in 2000 the Rehnquist court, in an opinion authored by the chief justice, reaffirmed the original decision as a constitutional rule that may not be overturned by an act of Congress. Civil liberties groups have continued to protest that police routinely omit Miranda warnings.

Miranda v. Arizona

(1966) U.S. Supreme Court decision that specified a code of conduct for police during interrogations of criminal suspects. Miranda established that the police are required to inform arrested persons that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney. The case involved a claim by the plaintiff that the state of Arizona, by obtaining a confession from him without having informed him of his right to have a lawyer present, had violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment regarding self-incrimination. The 5-to-4 decision shocked the law-enforcement community; several later decisions limited the scope of the Miranda safeguards. See also rights of the accused.

Miranda v. Arizona (redirected from Miranda versus Arizona)

Section 1

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona
(redirected from Miranda versus Arizona)