What are Miranda rights, and when do police have to read them?

Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 held that before questioning someone in custody, police must warn them of the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, the right to an attorney, and the right to appointed counsel if they cannot afford one. Both conditions must be present: custody, meaning a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, and interrogation, meaning questioning or its functional equivalent. Roadside questioning during a routine traffic stop generally is not custody, and voluntary statements made without any questioning are admissible regardless.

The most common misunderstanding is about consequences. A Miranda violation does not invalidate an arrest, dismiss charges, or free anyone. The remedy is narrower: statements obtained in violation are generally inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief. Physical evidence and independently obtained evidence usually remain admissible, and there are recognized exceptions including a public safety exception for questions addressing immediate danger. The Supreme Court also held in 2022 that a Miranda violation does not by itself support a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Two practical points. Invoking the rights requires saying so clearly and unambiguously, since the Court has held that silence alone does not invoke the right to remain silent and that ambiguous references to a lawyer are insufficient. Saying plainly that you are invoking your right to remain silent and want a lawyer, and then actually remaining silent, is what triggers the protection. And once counsel is requested, questioning must stop until an attorney is present. Talking your way out of a situation is the mistake defense lawyers describe most often, because statements intended as exculpatory routinely supply elements the prosecution needed.