In Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), the Court applied the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the context of custodial interrogation. After you are arrested the police must warn you that you have the right to remain silent, that any statements you make can be used against you in court, that you have the right to consult with counsel, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you prior to questioning. If the police fail to provide the Miranda warnings or a fully effective equivalent, any statements obtained from the suspect are inadmissible in the government's case in chief. See Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 443-444 (2000).
Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The police may use your confession without violating your Fifth Amendment right only when the decision to confess is your free choice.” See United States v Anderson, 929 F2d 96, 98 (2d Cir. 1991). “[T]o reduce the risk of a coerced confession and to implement the Self-Incrimination Clause, th[e] Court in Miranda concluded that the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored.” See Missouri v Seibert, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 2608 (2004). “Miranda conditioned the admissibility at trial of any custodial confession on warning a suspect of his rights: failure to give the prescribed warnings and obtain a waiver of rights before custodial questioning generally requires exclusion of any statements obtained.” Id. “Conversely, giving the warnings and getting a waiver has generally produced a virtual ticket of admissibility.” Id. “[C]ases in which a defendant can make a colorable argument that a self-incriminating statement was ‘compelled' despite the fact that the law enforcement authorities adhered to the dictates of Miranda are rare.” See Berkemer v McCarty, 468 US 420, 433 n.20 (1984).