Your Rights During an Arrest

Your Rights During an Arrest

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona, that individuals who are under arrest for suspicion of having committed a crime have certain rights that must be explained to them before any questioning may occur. The rights are designed to protect your Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination and are read in a warning as follows:

1. You have the right to remain silent and to refuse to answer questions.
2. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.
3. 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.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
5. 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.

Note: Miranda rights must only be read when an individual is in police custody and under interrogation which would not apply to situations like traffic stops.

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person’s statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial.

They must be certain that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them.

– Do not sign away your rights when the police put that piece of paper in front of you.

Miranda was viewed by many as a radical change in American criminal law, since the Fifth Amendment was traditionally understood only to protect Americans against formal types of compulsion to confess, such as threats of contempt of court.

It has had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda warning part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights.

The concept of “Miranda warnings” quickly caught on across American law enforcement agencies, who came to call the practice “Mirandizing”.

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), criminal suspects who are aware of their right to silence and to an attorney but choose not to “unambiguously” invoke them, may find any subsequent voluntary statements treated as an implied waiver of their rights, and used as or as part of evidence. 

Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)

Van Chester Thompkins was a suspect in a shooting death that occurred in Michigan.  

Upon arrest, Michigan police properly advised Thompkins of his Miranda rights.  

Thompkins appeared to understand those rights but refused to sign a Miranda form.  Police then interrogated Thompkins for three hours.  

During the interrogation, Thompkins was largely silent.  

However, near the end of questioning, Thompkins answered “yes” when an officer asked if Thompkins prayed for God’s forgiveness for shooting the victim.

Thompkins moved to suppress that statement prior to his trial.  The trial court denied the motion.  

During closing arguments at trial, the prosecution made reference to the trial of one of Thompkins’s accomplices.  

Thompkins’s attorney did not object to that reference. Thompkins was ultimately found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

FAQ