Supreme Court says Miranda rule is out for inmates

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said yesterday that investigators do not have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.

The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out the conviction of prison inmate Randall Lee Fields, saying Fields was not in custody as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.

“Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda,’’ Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s majority opinion.


Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court’s decision would limit the rights of prisoners.

Get Ground Game in your inbox:
Daily updates and analysis on national politics from James Pindell.
Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

“Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: ‘You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,’ ’’ Ginsburg said. “Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights.’’

Previous rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people in custody, defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave.