Miranda v. Arizona and the right to remain silent
How a single Supreme Court case gave rise to the warning every TV cop recites, what rights it actually protects, and the long fight over whether it helps or hinders justice.
Listen in the Fylom app.
Ernesto Miranda signed a confession claiming full knowledge of rights he was never actually told.
The Supreme Court ruled that Fifth Amendment protections apply the moment freedom is significantly curtailed.
Police must meet a four-fold requirement before questioning any suspect held in custody.
Suspects are now required to affirmatively speak in order to invoke their right to remain silent.
Public safety exceptions allow officers to bypass warnings when searching for weapons in public spaces.
Physical evidence found through unconstitutional interrogations remains admissible even if verbal confessions are suppressed.
- 01Intro1 min
- 02The Interrogation of Ernesto Miranda2 min
- 03The Supreme Court's Five-Four Decision3 min
- 04The Dissent and the Public Backlash3 min
- 05Modern Erosion and the Current Standard3 min
- 06Outro1 min
- Miranda v. Arizona
- Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez
- Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona - United States Courts
- Ernesto A. MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARIZONA. Michael VIGNERA, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW YORK. Carl Calvin WESTOVER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. Roy Allen STEWART. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - The National Constitution Center
- Miranda v. Arizona Case Summary: What You Need to Know - FindLaw
- Miranda v. Arizona - Teaching American History
- Miranda v. Arizona
- Miranda v. Arizona | 384 U.S. 436 (1966) - Justia Supreme Court
- The Right to Remain Silent
- The Miranda rights are established | June 13, 1966 | HISTORY
- Ernesto Miranda’s role in constitutional history | Constitution Center
- Miranda – The Case that Changed Policing | City of Phoenix
- Q&AZ: 'The right to remain silent' was established in 1966 from a Phoenix police case
- U.S. Reports: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
- “ Cf. Bette v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942), and the recurrent in-r quiry into special circumstances it necessitated. See generally, Kamisar, Betts v. Brady Twenty Years Later: The Right to Conn— sel and Due Process Values, 61 Mich. L. Rev. 21!) (1962').
- Miranda v. Arizona - Wikisource, the free online library
- Miranda and Its Aftermath | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Fylom generates episodes like this on any topic you're curious about.
Fylom episodes are researched, written, and voiced by AI. Automated checks help catch inaccuracies, but episodes aren't reviewed by a human and AI can still get things wrong. Treat them as a starting point, not a source of record — more in our accuracy disclaimer.