The Ten Lawful Exceptions to Miranda

The Ten Lawful Exceptions to Miranda

Robert C. Phillips
DDA (Retired)
April, 2017

            When Chief Justice Earl Warren first announced the landmark case decision of Miranda v. Arizona[1] in 1966, delivering the opinion of a majority of the United States Supreme Court, law enforcement was outraged.  Here was a man in a black robe with absolutely no street experience, backed by the slimmest of majorities in a five-to-four court decision, dictating to cops that when they arrest a person accused of crime—someone from whom the officer wants and often needs a confession—that the officer is first required to attempt to talk the accused out of talking to police by playing the part of an arrestee’s legal advocate, by warning that person of the dangers of talking at all.  When you think about it, how ludicrous is that

            But it doesn’t do any good to cry over it.  Miranda has been the law for over 50 years now, and has become so commonplace—popularized by television and the news media alike—that there is hardly an American citizen with any level of comprehension who isn’t familiar with at least the concept of the so-called “Miranda warnings.”

            And the news isn’t all bad.  Along with over five decades of fine-tuning the concepts behind the Miranda decision, the courts have developed at the very least ten recognized exceptions to the rule that in-custody suspects must first be advised of their rights to counsel and to remain silent.   Police and prosecutors need to know when these exceptions apply.  Below is a quick review.

1.  Impeachment: 

A defendant’s “non-coerced” statements made to the police, even though obtained in ....

© 2026 Legal Updates, LLC.
This content is protected by copyright law. Republishing or redistribution in any form without written permission is strictly prohibited. For licensing or reprint requests, contact support@legalupdates.com.