Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

On June 13th, 1966, the Supreme Court announced its 5-4 ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona case. This ruling established “Miranda Rights,” a standard police procedure which revolves around the principle that an arresting officer must advise a criminal suspect of his or her rights before being taken into custody and interrogated. The Court’s ruling in this landmark case effectively reinforced the importance of ensuring that the accused are aware of their Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one can be forced to testify against himself; defendants in criminal cases can choose to remain silent, "pleading the Fifth," rather than offering testimony that might be used to convict them (Shmoop Editorial Team). On March 2, 1963, a young woman was kidnapped,
Subsequently, Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape, and received a 20-year sentence. Not long after his initial conviction, the American Civil Liberties Union took up his appeal, adamant that the confession he gave was false and coerced (History.com). This assertion lead to the Supreme Court retry his case and later overturn his conviction. The rationale for the Court’s decision is based upon the shared philosophy that an individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself. Miranda v. Arizona is a case that enabled the Supreme Court to fully identify and reiterate the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of the police when arresting someone. The “Miranda Rights,” or “Miranda Warnings” are based off of these legal obligations: “Police must warn a suspect “prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”