Most of us have watched enough TV to know the Miranda rights¹ (also called the Miranda warnings) by heart:

•  You have the right to remain silent.

•  Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.

•  You have the right to an attorney.

•  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you by the court.

These rights are derived from the U.S. Constitution, so the protection they provide is particularly strong because the Constitution is the ultimate law in every jurisdiction in the United States.²

The right to remain silent is also called the “privilege against self-incrimination.” It means that you cannot be forced to say or write anything that might be used to prove you’re guilty of a crime.³

The right to an attorney means that you’re entitled to have a lawyer present to help you during police questioning, line-ups, hearings, etc. Having your lawyer present during interrogation will help you use your right to remain silent.

When the court appoints an attorney for you because you can’t afford one, that lawyer is usually a public defender or panel attorney (see Using a Lawyer)

There is no one-and-only correct wording for the Miranda warnings—small changes are acceptable. For example, one officer might say “Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law,” and another police officer might say, “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Both versions would be considered adequate. However, the officer can’t make a change that alters the basic meaning. For example, it would be legally insufficient if an officer said “If you cannot afford an attorney, one may be appointed for you by the court.” Many police departments instruct their officers to read the Miranda rights off a card, so that they’re less likely to make a mistake.

If you invoke either of these two rights—the right to remain silent or the right to counsel—the police have to stop questioning you. It’s best to invoke these rights together, because that provides both present and future protection from interrogation. 


1.  The Miranda rights got their name from a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966, in which Ernest Miranda's conviction for rape and kidnapping was overturned because the police questioned him without adequately informing him of his opportunities to remain silent and to obtain legal advice.  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

2.  Occassionally, you'll read a superficial news story claiming "the Miranda protections have been overturned."  This is because every so often there's a new high court decision that refines or adapts the use and effect of the Miranda warnings.  Since most journalists aren't in a position to explain new legal technicalities, they end up oversimplifying the story - and then their editors compound the problem by adding a hysterical title like, "Miranda Rights Abolished!" (News is a business and sensationalism sells.)  So regardless of what the headlines say, don't panic before checking with a lawyer.  Besides, the Miranda decision only says that, under certain circumstances, the police have to tell you about your constitutional rights.  Even if the Miranda case were overturned, it would just mean that you've got to learn about your rights withour input from the police - which fortunately, you're doing at this very moment.

3.  Voice samples and handwritting samples are exceptions to this rule.