Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Court required that custodial interrogation be preceded by
the now-familiar warnings mentioned above, and it directed 
that  statements  obtained  in  violation  of  these  new  rules 
may not be used by the prosecution in its case-in-chief.  384 
U. S., at 444, 479. 

In this case, the Ninth Circuit held—and Tekoh now ar-
gues, Brief for Respondent 20—that a violation of Miranda 
constitutes  a  violation  of  the  Fifth  Amendment  right
against  compelled  self-incrimination,  but  that  is  wrong. 
Miranda  itself  and  our  subsequent  cases  make  clear  that 
Miranda imposed a set of prophylactic rules.  Those rules, 
to  be  sure,  are  “constitutionally  based,”  Dickerson,  530 
U. S., at 440, but they are prophylactic rules nonetheless. 

suspect 

B 
Miranda itself was clear on this point.  Miranda did not 
hold that a violation of the rules it established necessarily 
constitute a Fifth Amendment violation, and it is difficult 
to see how it could have held otherwise.  For one thing, it is
easy  to  imagine  many  situations  in  which  an  un-
self- 
Mirandized 
incriminating statements without any hint of compulsion. 
In addition, the warnings that the Court required included
components,  such  as  notification  of  the  right  to  have  re-
tained  or  appointed  counsel  present  during  questioning,
that do not concern self-incrimination per se but are instead 
plainly designed to safeguard that right.  And the same is 
true  of  Miranda’s  detailed  rules  about  the  waiver  of  the 
right  to  remain  silent  and  the  right  to  an  attorney.    384 
U. S., at 474–479. 

custody  may  make 

in 

At no point in the opinion did the Court state that a vio-
lation  of  its  new  rules  constituted  a  violation  of  the  Fifth 
Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.  In-
stead, it claimed only that those rules were needed to safe-
guard that right during custodial interrogation.  See id., at 
439 (describing its rules as “procedures which assure that