| Key
Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
The case was decided 5 to 4.
Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.
The
cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of
our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints
society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution
in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically,
we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from
an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation
and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual
is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.
. . .
Our
holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the
pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution
may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory,
stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless
it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective
to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial
interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody. . .
. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed . . .
the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning,
the person must be warned that he has a right to remain
silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence
against him, and that he has a right to the presence of
an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant
may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver
is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however,
he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process
that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking
there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual
is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish
to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The
mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered
some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right
to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he
has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to
be questioned. . . .
The
Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system
of constitutional rule and the expedient of giving an adequate
warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple,
we will not pause to inquire in individual cases whether
the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning
being given. . . .
The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied
by the explanation that anything said can and will be used
against the individual in court. This warning is needed
in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but
also of the consequences of forgoing it. . . . [T]his warning
may serve to make the individual more acutely aware that
he is faced with a phase of the adversary system-that he
is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interests.
. . .
.
. . [W]e hold that an individual held for interrogation
must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult
with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation
under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate
today. . . . No amount of circumstantial evidence that the
person may have been aware of this right will suffice to
stand in its stead: Only through such a warning is there
ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this
right.
If
an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of
counsel before any interrogation occurs, the authorities
cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the basis
that the individual does not have or cannot afford a retained
attorney. . . . The privilege against self-incrimination
secured by the Constitution applies to all individuals.
The need for counsel in order to protect the privilege exists
for the indigent as well as the affluent. . . .
The
principles announced today deal with the protection which
must be given to the privilege against self-incrimination
when the individual is first subjected to police interrogation
while in custody at the station or otherwise deprived of
his freedom of action in any significant way. It is at this
point that our adversary system of criminal proceedings
commences, distinguishing itself at the outset from the
inquisitorial system recognized in some countries. Under
the system of warnings we delineate today or under any other
system which may be devised and found effective, the safeguards
to be erected about the privilege must come into play at
this point. . . .
. . . [W]e hold that when an individual is taken into custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities
in any significant way and is subjected to questioning,
the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized.
. . .
Questions to Consider:
- According
to Chief Justice Warren, what fundamental questions does
this case raise about the American justice system?
- What
does he mean by "custodial interrogation"?
- Why
does he say that we should not rely on asking individuals
whether they are aware of their rights without a warning
being given?
- What does Chief Justice Warren say the police have to do to ensure due process?
- Do
you agree that when a person is taken into custody and
subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination
is jeopardized unless explicit warnings are given about
rights? Why or why not? Should there be any exceptions
to this rule? Explain.
|
