In other words, a Miranda warning is a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer in order to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.

The same rule also prevents prosecutors from commenting about the postarrest silence of suspects who invoke their Miranda rights immediately after arrest.

The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute.

Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in " a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda ".

The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.

The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation.

Thus, requiring a suspect to participate in identification procedures such as giving handwriting or voice exemplars, fingerprints, DNA samples, hair samples, and dental impressions is not within the Miranda rule.

# that the suspect voluntarily waived those rights or that the circumstances fit an exception to the Miranda rule.

Simply advising the suspect of their rights does not fully comply with the Miranda rule.

Assuming that the six factors are present, the Miranda rule would apply unless the prosecution can establish that the statement falls within an exception to the Miranda rule.

Assuming that a Miranda violation occurred — the six factors are present and no exception applies — the statement will be subject to suppression under the Miranda exclusionary rule.

Since the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to Miranda violations, the exclusionary rule exceptions, attenuation, independent source and inevitable discovery, do not come into play.

The definition of " deliberate elicitation " is not the same as the definition of " interrogation " under the Miranda rule.

With regard to Miranda issues, state courts have exhibited significant resistance to incorporating into their state jurisprudence some of the limitations on the Miranda rule that have been created by the federal courts.

As a consequence a defendant may be able to circumvent the federal limitation on the Miranda rule and successfully challenge the admissibility under state constitutional provisions.

Practically every aspect of the Miranda rule has drawn state court criticism.

However the primary point of contention involve the following limitations on the scope of the Miranda rule: ( 1 ) the Harris exception ( 2 ) the Burbine rule and ( 3 ) the Fare rule.

Applying this objective test, the Court has held Miranda does not apply to roadside questioning of a stopped motorist or to questioning of a person briefly detained on the street — a Terry stop.

A volunteered statement by a person in custody does not implicate Miranda.

A confession obtained through the interrogation by an undercover police officer or a paid informant does not violate Miranda because there is no coercion, no police dominated atmosphere if the suspect does not know that they are being questioned by the police.

Similarly, Miranda does not apply directly to probation revocation proceedings because the evidence is not being used as a basis for imposing additional punishment.

The constitution does not require that a defendant be advised of the Miranda rights as part of the arrest procedure, or once officer has probable cause to arrest, or if the defendant has become a suspect of the focus of an investigation.

Most states followed the federal definition of interrogation Innis rule If “ Yes ” go to 2 ; If “ No ”, Miranda does not apply.

If “ Yes ” go to 3 ; If “ No ”, Miranda does not apply.

# Did the government agents obtain testimonial evidence as a result of the interrogation? If “ Yes ” go to 4 ; If “ No ”, Miranda does not apply.

If “ Yes ” go to 5 ; If “ No ”, Miranda does not apply.

# Did the police resume the interrogation? f “ Yes ” go to 16 ; If “ No ”, Miranda does not apply.

Because Miranda applies only to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions such as name and address.

There are significant protections against coercive self incrimination in Article 31, UCMJ, but it does differ somewhat from the Miranda warning, and in essence provides greater protections.

Nineteen-year-old Miranda does not know Oly is her mother.

Driven by surging R & B grooves and churning lyrics that suggest the fingerprints of Mr. Miranda ... the dance numbers for the Jackson crowd kick the musical into high gear for most of the first act .... Like most entertainments about the trials and triumphs of the teenage years, ' Bring It On ' has as much sap as it does pep in its DNA.

Miranda uses her experience as a psychiatrist to give a psychological profile, and as she does so realizes that Ryan fits the profile perfectly.

* McNeil v. Wisconsin, court case that proved invoking the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not implicitly invoke rights secured by Miranda v. Arizona

The fifteen year old does not choose her own husband ; instead, Prospero sends Ariel, his spirit servant, to fetch Ferdinand while Miranda is asleep, and arranges things so that the two will come to love one another.

* A note about the Miranda warnings: The text of the Fifth Amendment does not require that the police, before interrogating a suspect whom they have in custody, give him or her the now-famous Miranda warnings.

It used to be an administrative division, and although it does not correspond to a modern day region's borders, there are some cultural characteristics particular to Terra de Miranda that keep the name in use to the present day.

" Jackson realizes that, without Miranda Sharifi, the world is poised to fall apart, starting with the agoraphobia weapon, unless he does something about it.

A confession obtained in violation of the Miranda standards may nonetheless be used for purposes of impeaching the defendant's testimony: that is, if the defendant takes the stand at trial and the prosecution wishes to introduce the defendant's confession as a prior inconsistent statement to attack the defendant's credibility, the Miranda holding will not prohibit this ( see Harris v. New York, ).

Thus in theory, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

The court has similarly held that a person who voluntarily comes to the police station for purposes of questioning is not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings particularly when the police advise the suspect that he is not under arrest and free to leave.

In some jurisdictions, a detention differs at law from an arrest, and police are not required to give the Miranda warning until the person is arrested for a crime.

Miranda v. Arizona, required that certain rights of a person interrogated while in police custody be clearly explained, including the right to an attorney ( often called the " Miranda warning ").

A Miranda warning is required only when a person has been taken into custody ( i. e. is not free to leave ) and is being interrogated.

The two different but diverging paths along which these rights evolved and operate in Anglo-American jurisprudence ( one through rights expressed in an entrenched constitution, the other in Acts of Parliament specifying rights or protections at common law ) can be seen today in Commonwealth nations like Australia and New Zealand, where police officers are still required at common law to issue " Miranda-style " warnings ( but which are completely unrelated to the US Miranda warning ruling ) and inform an arrested person that they do not have to answer any questions but that whatever they do say ( or do ) can be used in court as evidence.

Several Miranda cards were found on his person.

Miranda v. Arizona, required that certain rights of a person interrogated while in police custody be clearly explained, including the right to an attorney ( often called the " Miranda warning ").