The
Miranda warning (also referred to as
Miranda rights) is a
warning that is required to be given by
police in the United States to criminal
suspects in police custody (or in a
custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to inform them about their constitutional rights. In
Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute
admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of the right to decline to make self-incriminatory statements and the right to legal counsel (hence the so-called "Miranda rights"), and makes a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights.
[Note 1] The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination; as a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Berghuis v. Thompkins suspects retain their 5th Amendment right to remain silent, however, if a suspect waives this right and interrogation begins, the right to halt further interrogation by the police must be exercised explicitly, by revoking the prior waiver of this 5th Amendment right.
Serapis, we are not in disagreement. Miranda is a due process right, a right which I contend is the only true inalienable right in the Constitution and one that is actually granted by the Constitution.
