Upon arrest, an officer must read a person his or her Miranda rights. This warning provides an overview of specific civil rights that a person has when under arrest.
The United States Courts explain the Miranda warning comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which an individual claimed officers never informed him that he had the right to refuse to talk with them when they arrested him.
The history
The Miranda v. Arizona court case spelled out what happened when officers arrested Miranda and began interrogations. It was the basis for the Miranda warning ruling by the Supreme Court.
The court also considered a few other cases in which individuals were unaware of their rights during questioning by investigators after they placed them under arrest.
The court ruled that any statement given to investigators is not valid if the person did not give such a statement without knowledge of his or her rights. The court stated individuals under arrest must have a warning of their rights, which created the standard for the Miranda warning.
The warning
When officers arrest an individual, they must read a warning that explains the individual has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. According to Cornell Law School, the warning will outline the rights afforded to every person under the U.S. Constitution in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
If a person receives the Miranda warning and still decides to talk with investigators, then the prosecution can use his or her statements in court. However, if the person does not receive the Miranda warning, then the prosecutor cannot use the statements.