The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he/she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he/she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he/she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him/her.
United States Supreme Court, Miranda v. Arizona
Hollywood has done both a service and disservice in raising awareness of what has come to be known as the Miranda Warnings. Miranda warnings are the rights you are commonly read when the police arrest you. In the movies and television shows, the police always read off a memorized statement of rights to the suspect. Then the officer handcuffs the suspect before throwing him into the back of their car. These scenes have been a service to the public at large. They make people aware that they indeed have these rights, and these rights must be read to them. It has done a disservice to the public in that the movies and television shows do not explain when your rights must be read to you, and what the consequences are when they do not read them to you. The movies and television shows make it look like your rights must be read to you whenever you are taken into custody, but that is not the case.
The reason that law enforcement is required to read the ‘Miranda Warnings’ is because historically the public has been unaware of exactly what their rights are. If you do not know what your rights are, then obviously it is going to make it a little difficult to exercise those rights.
The truth about Miranda Warnings is, they do not have to be read to a suspect that is simply being arrested. The warning has to be read to a suspect before he is questioned while in custody. The reason police will sometimes read a suspect his rights when he is arrested is so that anything he says after he is arrested will be clearly admissible in court. For example, after a suspect is arrested and placed in the police car, the officer may casually ask the suspect questions on the way to the jail. The suspect may answer those questions. If those questions have any relevance to a crime, the suspect may have a basis to suppress those statements at trial as a violation of his constitutional rights. So some police agencies just read the rights to every individual suspect they arrest. Many agencies do not.
There really are no ‘Miranda Rights’, there are only constitutional rights. What we call ‘Miranda Rights’ are actually just a group of constitutional rights related to criminal law. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution grant a defendant a right against self incrimination, and a right to an attorney during every stage of a criminal prosecution.
If a suspect is questioned by the police, while in custody, and hasn’t been read his rights, the statements the suspect makes to the police can be suppressed by a court for a violation of the Defendant’s constitutional rights. But if the police simply never read the suspect his rights, and never question him while in custody, then there is no violation of his rights, and consequently no remedy.