If you have ever watched a crime drama, you are likely familiar with your Miranda rights. Most people understand generally that police must advise a suspect of their rights when placing someone under arrest. However, the information depicted in crime shows is not entirely accurate, and important nuances affect when Miranda applies.
In the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court established that police officers must inform people of their constitutional rights when they are placed under arrest.
The case arose from the 1963 arrest of Ernesto Miranda, a laborer who was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and rape. After voluntarily participating in a police lineup, he asked how he did. Police said he was positively identified. After two hours of questioning, Miranda confessed. He was never advised of his right to an attorney or his right to remain silent.
At trial, his attorney sought to exclude the use of Miranda’s confession. He was overruled, and Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison.
Miranda appealed, arguing that an emotionally disturbed and poorly educated man like Miranda could not be expected to know of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda’s favor, finding that a suspect must be informed of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can and will be used against them, their right to an attorney, and that an attorney will be provided if they cannot afford one.
Miranda rights exist to prevent law enforcement officers from using coercive interrogation techniques. They apply when two conditions are met:
Miranda only applies once a suspect is taken into custody. Statements made before an arrest are still fair game and can be introduced as evidence. For example, when police are called to a domestic dispute, they may ask questions to learn about what happened. These statements are admissible because the suspect was not in police custody.
Similarly, people may make statements during interactions with police that can still be used in court, such as when police officers initially approach them, while they are being handcuffed, or while sitting in the back of the police car.
Finally, Miranda only applies to statements made in response to police questioning. Statements voluntarily made to the police are not covered and can still be used against you.
Miranda warnings have become a standard police practice. They are intended to discourage police officers from using coercive interrogation techniques and inform suspects of their constitutional rights. If police violate Miranda by failing to advise a suspect of their rights, under the exclusionary rule, anything the suspect says after they are taken into custody can be excluded from consideration at trial.
However, statements made before a suspect was arrested may still be enough to secure a conviction. These statements are presumed to have been made voluntarily and can often still be used at trial.
Many people mistakenly believe that if the police did not read them their Miranda rights, their case will be dismissed. This is inaccurate and overlooks many nuances of the Miranda ruling.
When police violate Miranda, anything the suspect says after they were placed under arrest can be excluded from consideration at trial. But even that exclusion is not automatic. Your lawyer must file a Motion to Suppress evidence asking the court to exclude illegally obtained evidence. If the Motion is successful, statements made after you were placed under arrest cannot be considered as evidence.
In many cases, having incriminating evidence excluded can lead to a reduction in charges. Sometimes, if the prosecutor believes they lack the evidence necessary to secure a conviction, it may lead to a dismissal of the case.
If you are being arrested, regardless of whether or not the police read you your Miranda rights, do your best to stay calm, politely but firmly tell the officers you are asserting your right to remain silent, and ask to speak to an attorney.
A criminal defense attorney can ensure you fully understand the legal implications of your situation, help you avoid saying something that could later be used to incriminate you, and protect your rights. In some situations, a criminal defense attorney may be able to help you avoid being charged with a crime, negotiate a less severe charge, or gain concessions in exchange for your statement that can improve your situation.
Located in Ann Arbor, Elman Legal represents individuals throughout Michigan for a wide range of criminal matters. Call (734) 707-8915 or contact Elmen Legal online to schedule an appointment to discuss your situation and how Robert Elmen can help.
© 2026 Elmen Legal, PLLC — Ann Arbor, Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney
