Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 10

6 

VEGA v. TEKOH 

Opinion of the Court 

the  individual  is  accorded  his  privilege  under  the  Fifth 
Amendment”); id., at 444 (describing rules as “procedural 
safeguards”); id., at 457 (“appropriate safeguards”); id., at 
458  (“adequate  protective  devices”);  id.,  at  467  (“safe-
guards”).

In  accordance  with  this  understanding  of  the  nature  of 
the rules it imposed, the Miranda Court stated quite clearly
that  the  Constitution  did  not  itself  require  “adherence  to 
any particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the 
interrogation process” and that its decision “in no way cre-
ate[d]  a  constitutional  straitjacket.”    Ibid.  The  opinion 
added that its new rules might not be needed if Congress or 
the States adopted “other procedures which are at least as
effective,” ibid., and the opinion suggested that there might 
not  have  been  any  actual  Fifth  Amendment  violations  in
the four cases that were before the Court.  See id., at 457 
(“In  these  cases,  we  might  not  find  the  defendants’  state-
ments to have been involuntary in traditional terms”).  The 
Court could not have said any of these things if a violation
of the Miranda rules necessarily constituted a violation of
the Fifth Amendment. 

Since  Miranda,  the  Court  has  repeatedly  described  the
rules it adopted as “prophylactic.”  See Howes v. Fields, 565 
U. S. 499, 507 (2012); J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U. S. 
261,  269  (2011);  Maryland  v.  Shatzer,  559  U. S.  98,  103 
(2010); Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U. S. 778, 794 (2009); Da-
vis  v.  United  States,  512  U. S.  452,  458  (1994);  Brecht  v. 
Abrahamson,  507  U. S.  619,  629  (1993);  Withrow  v.  Wil-
liams, 507 U. S. 680, 691 (1993); McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 
U. S.  171,  176  (1991);  Michigan  v.  Harvey,  494  U. S.  344, 
350 (1990); Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U. S. 195, 203 (1989); 
Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U. S. 675, 681 (1988); Connecticut 
v. Barrett, 479 U. S. 523, 528 (1987); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 
U. S. 298, 309 (1985); New York v. Quarles, 467 U. S. 649, 
654 (1984); South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U. S. 553, 564, n. 
15 (1983); United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 274 (1980);