People talk about their Miranda Rights. That is a misnomer. The rights are Constitutional rights. “Miranda” refers to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Miranda vs. Arizona, which held that, where a defendant who was not aware of these rights, confesses to a crime, the confession may not be used against him. The court set out the basis for what came to be called “Miranda Warnings” which are administered by an investigating or arresting law enforcement officer prior to asking questions to a suspect or detainee.

Usually, the Miranda warnings are read off a card, and the officer will ask you whether you understand each warning as s/he reads it. Then, you will usually be asked to sign a paper saying that you received the warnings. In essence, the Miranda warnings mean that you are giving up your Constitutional protection against self-incrimination and are giving a voluntary statement to the police. If your statement contains or leads to evidence that can incriminate you, you may have given up the right to exclude that evidence at trial.

A common misconception is that the police are must “read you your rights” in order for an arrest to be valid. There is no such requirement. If, however, you made an admission or a confession or an incriminating statement, and you had NOT been “Mirandized,” the state would probably be prevented from introducing the bad statement at trial. If you had been properly advised of your rights, the statement can be used against you at trial.

Miranda Warnings

1. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
2. Anything you do 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 any questioning.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
5. you decide to answer questions without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.