Free tool · Criminal Procedure
Do Miranda Rights Apply?
Police must give Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation: questioning of a person who is not free to leave. If they do not, the person’s statements generally cannot be used in the prosecution’s case in chief, though a voluntary statement may still be used to impeach the person if they testify differently. Warnings are not needed if the person is not in custody, if there is no interrogation, or under exceptions such as public safety. A suspect who clearly asks for a lawyer must not be questioned again until counsel is present, unless the suspect starts the conversation. Choose the facts to see how a court would reason.
Tool · Miranda Checker
Inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief: no adequate warnings.
Custody plus interrogation: The suspect was in custody and was interrogated, so Miranda applies.
Warnings: No warnings were given before custodial interrogation: the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against the suspect, the right to a lawyer, and that one will be appointed if he cannot afford it (Miranda v Arizona).
The statement cannot be used in the prosecution’s case in chief, but if it was voluntary it may still be used to impeach the defendant if he testifies inconsistently.
- Miranda warnings are a prophylactic rule. A separate due process test excludes any confession that is involuntary, whether or not warnings were given, and an involuntary confession cannot be used even to impeach (Mincey v Arizona).
- The physical fruits of an unwarned but voluntary statement are generally admissible (United States v Patane), but a deliberate ‘question first, warn later’ strategy can taint a later warned confession (Missouri v Seibert).
- A voluntary statement taken in violation of Miranda can still be used to impeach the defendant if he testifies inconsistently (Harris v New York).
Asks the Fifth Amendment questions in order: was the statement voluntary, was the suspect in custody and interrogated, do an exception apply, did the suspect invoke silence or counsel, were complete warnings given, and was the right validly waived? It then says whether the statement can be used in the prosecution’s case, and whether it can still impeach the defendant. Simplified federal doctrine. A teaching aid, not a prediction and not legal advice. Runs in your browser; nothing is stored or sent.
How to use it
- Say whether the suspect was in custody and being interrogated.
- Say whether warnings were given and whether the suspect waived.
- Say whether the suspect asked for silence or a lawyer, and whether any exception applies.
- Read whether the statement can be used in the case in chief or only to impeach.
Common questions
Do police have to read you your rights when they arrest you?
Not at the moment of arrest. Warnings are required before custodial interrogation. If the police do not question you, there is nothing to exclude.
Do you have to say ‘I want a lawyer’ in so many words?
You must clearly and unambiguously ask for counsel or say you want to remain silent. An ambiguous remark such as ‘maybe I should talk to a lawyer’ does not stop questioning.
Can an unwarned statement ever be used?
A voluntary unwarned statement can be used to impeach the defendant if they testify inconsistently. An involuntary (coerced) statement cannot be used for any purpose.
Learn the law behind the tool
This tool is part of our Criminal Procedure course, with lectures, concept maps, flashcards, interactive exercises and a capstone case. Criminal Procedure: The Fifth Amendment and Miranda.
More free law tools
General information, simplified, mainly on American law, not legal advice. States and countries differ, and real cases turn on facts that a tool cannot capture.