Police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer, and to have one appointed to them if they are indigent. A police interrogation must stop if the suspect states that they wish to remain silent. Decided June 13, 1966 (argued 1966). Opinion of the Court: Earl Warren → go there Dissenting: Harlan, White. Applied: the Fifth Amendment → go there Applied: the Sixth Amendment → go there Applied: the Fourteenth Amendment → go there Topic: Right to counsel. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them when they are in custody, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence against them at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions. Wiki link