Custodial interrogation

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Decision date

June 13, 1966

Record type

U.S. Reports opinion

Source checked

September 4, 2026

InmateLink explanation

What this case helps you understand

Miranda addresses safeguards for custodial interrogation: before questioning in custody, officers generally must explain the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, and any waiver must be evaluated under the governing law.

Limits to check

Whether Miranda applies depends on custody, interrogation, and the facts; later decisions address invocation, waiver, exceptions, and remedies.
This page is not a complete statement of current federal or state interrogation law.

Do not assume

A warning violation does not by itself guarantee dismissal or suppression of every piece of evidence.
Do not assume silence, a request, or a waiver has the same legal effect in every setting.

Questions to check

Was the person in custody and being interrogated when the statement was sought?
Were the rights invoked or waived, and what happened afterward?

Review scope: Primary U.S. Reports record plus the listed official later-treatment anchors; not a citator or exhaustive current-law review. Reviewed September 4, 2026. This is an InmateLink explanation, not copied opinion text or legal advice.

Official primary source

Open the court record

This page identifies the official opinion record and its citation. Read the complete opinion at the official publisher before relying on it.

Open official opinion record

Publisher: U.S. Government Publishing Office · GovInfo
Official citation: 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Current-treatment boundary

Review is intentionally not exhaustive.

InmateLink has not published a complete current-rule statement for this case. Later opinions, statutes, court rules, and state-law limits may change how a principle applies. Treat the links below as a research trail, not legal advice.

Related official treatment anchors

Back to landmark cases