When police arrest someone in the United States, they are required to inform the person of their constitutional rights. This is commonly referred to as “reading someone their rights” or giving the “Miranda warning.” The exact phrasing can vary slightly by jurisdiction, but generally includes the following key components:
You have the right to remain silent
This reminds the arrested person that they are not required to speak or answer any questions asked by the police. Anything they say can potentially be used against them as evidence in court. Remaining silent cannot legally be held against them and does not imply guilt.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
This reinforces that anything the arrested person does choose to say, either in that moment or later, can potentially be used as evidence against them if the case goes to trial. Police are required to clarify this right so the person understands the implications of speaking versus remaining silent.
You have the right to an attorney
This informs the arrested person that they have the right to have an attorney present during any questioning. An attorney can help ensure the person’s rights are protected and provide guidance on responding (or not responding) to police questions. If the person cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint one.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you
As stated above, this emphasize’s the arrested person’s right to have legal counsel even if they do not have the financial resources to hire an attorney themselves. The court will appoint a public defender or other attorney to represent them free of charge.
Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you?
Police must ask the arrested person if they comprehend each of the rights outlined above. This helps confirm the person is cognitively aware of their legal rights in that situation.
Having these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?
After being informed of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney, police must ask if the arrested individual still wishes to speak with them. This gives the person an opportunity to invoke their right to remain silent or request an attorney if they choose.
What is the origin and purpose of reading rights?
The practice of reading arrested individuals their rights comes from the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment requires police to inform suspects of their right against self-incrimination and right to counsel before questioning them while in custody.
This established the Miranda warning as a procedural safeguard to protect suspects’ constitutional rights. It seeks to ensure any statements made to police are given knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily – not due to intimidation or coercion while under arrest.
When are police required to read Miranda rights?
Police are required to read Miranda rights when a person is in “custodial interrogation.” This means both:
- The person has been taken into custody by police
- The police intend to interrogate or question the person
A formal arrest is not required. As long as the person does not feel free to leave police presence, they are considered in custody. Questioning includes any words or actions police should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Are there any exceptions to reading rights?
There are a few circumstances where police may not need to provide the Miranda warning before questioning a suspect:
- Public safety exception – If there is an imminent threat to public safety, police can ask limited questions without Miranda rights.
- Undercover operations – When undercover officers or informants question a suspect without revealing they are law enforcement.
- Routine booking questions – Questions like name, address, date of birth, etc. to complete booking paperwork.
Any incriminating statements obtained through these exemptions may still be inadmissible in court on constitutional grounds.
What happens if police fail to read Miranda rights?
If police fail to properly advise a suspect of their Miranda rights before a custodial interrogation, any information or confession obtained is generally not admissible in court later on. This exclusionary rule helps enforce compliance from police.
There are exceptions where statements obtained without a Miranda warning may still be admissible, such as:
- Invoking the public safety exemption
- The suspect spontaneously volunteered information without prompting
- Obtaining physical evidence as a result of the unwarned statement
Overall though, failure to read rights prevents prosecutors from using most confessions or statements against the suspect at trial.
Does invoking your rights imply guilt?
Absolutely not. Legally, invoking your right to remain silent or have an attorney present cannot be used as evidence of guilt. While it may draw police suspicion, that alone does not establish guilt.
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griffin v. California that prosecutors and judges cannot instruct juries to view a defendant’s silence as suggestive of guilt. This would penalize them for exercising their constitutional rights.
Can police keep questioning after rights are invoked?
Once a suspect unambiguously states they wish to remain silent or want an attorney present, all questioning must cease. Police cannot continue interrogation in hopes of getting the person to change their mind.
If the suspect later initiates further conversation, police can resume questioning at that point. However, they cannot badger or coerce the person after their rights were initially invoked.
Can rights be invoked selectively or partially?
Yes, suspects may choose to invoke only certain rights like the right to remain silent while still agreeing to speak with police without an attorney present. They don’t have to invoke their rights “all or nothing.”
Suspects may also invoke rights selectively by agreeing to discuss some topics but not others. Police must carefully clarify which rights are being invoked and honor the limits a suspect places.
Do police have to inform families of an arrest?
In most states, police do not have a legal obligation to notify a person’s family members that they have been arrested. However, many departments will allow suspects to contact a family member shortly after being taken into custody.
For minor juvenile arrests, many jurisdictions require parents to be notified within a reasonable timeframe. But for adults, it is generally up to the suspect to decide if and when to contact family about their arrest.
Can an attorney be present for police questioning?
Yes, if a suspect invokes their right to counsel, police must cease questioning until the suspect’s attorney arrives or the suspect waives their right to have counsel present.
Attorneys may advise their clients not to speak with police at all or may mediate the discussion. However, some complicated rules can apply as to whether police must stop questioning if the attorney is unavailable.
Who should be present when police read rights?
Best practice is for police to read rights to a suspect while they are alone in the interrogation room. This avoids any chance of outside influence or coercion from other parties.
However, suspects may wish to invoke their right to have counsel present. Attorneys are permitted but any family would need to wait elsewhere until the process is complete.
Do minors understand their rights?
Courts have generally held that juveniles age 14-17 have sufficient cognition to understand their Miranda rights if they are properly explained by police. Lower courts have split on capacities below age 14.
To help ensure comprehension, some departments require parents or lawyers for younger minors. Officers should also avoid complex vocabulary and confirm the minor’s understanding.
Can rights be waived?
Yes, suspects may waive their Miranda rights and agree to speak with police without invoking the right to remain silent or counsel. But for a waiver to be valid, it must be made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.
Police cannot use coercion or deception to obtain a waiver. Suspects must fully understand the rights they are giving up and potential consequences of doing so.
Is police failure to read rights common?
While exact statistics are unavailable, most experts agree that failure to administer Miranda warnings is relatively rare in comparison to the total number of arrests.
High-profile exceptions sometimes make the news when illegally obtained confessions are thrown out of court. But in general, police today receive extensive training on when and how to properly read suspects their rights.
Do false confessions happen?
Yes, false confessions do occur in a minority of cases, often due to high-pressure interrogations or suspects’ mental vulnerabilities. Exact rates are hard to estimate but likely around 1-2% for serious crimes based on various research.
Properly informing suspects of their Miranda rights can help reduce false confessions by ensuring they understand their right to remain silent and obtain counsel.
Conclusion
Police reading arrested individuals their Miranda rights has become a well-known staple of criminal procedure and justice on TV and in movies. But its origins and importance for ensuring constitutional rights trace back to a landmark 1966 Supreme Court case.
While the wording can vary slightly, the Miranda warning reminds suspects of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. It also informs them of their right to have an attorney present during police questioning.
Officers are required to administer the warning before custodial interrogation, and must honor a suspect’s invocation of rights. Violations can lead to illegally obtained statements being inadmissible in court.
Overall, the reading of rights represents a crucial check on state power and safeguard for individual liberties. It helps ensure our system respects human dignity and the core constitutional principle of due process under law.
