Miranda Rights by State (2026)

Alaska follows the federal Miranda standard with some additional state protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Alaska courts apply the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine whether a person is in custody
• The Alaska Supreme Court has held that Alaska's constitutional right against self-incrimination (Art. I, § 9) may provide broader protections than the Fifth Amendment
• Juveniles have enhanced protections — Alaska requires that a parent, guardian, or attorney be present during custodial interrogation of minors
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief

Arizona is the birthplace of the Miranda rule — the landmark case originated with the Phoenix Police Department's interrogation of Ernesto Miranda:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation — this rule originated from the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case involving Arizona
• Arizona courts apply the federal standard for determining custody and voluntariness
• Arizona has protections for juveniles during interrogation: under A.R.S. § 8-221, a juvenile's parent or guardian must be notified and given the opportunity to be present
• Arizona courts take Miranda violations seriously given the state's historic connection to the doctrine
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are inadmissible in Arizona courts

Arkansas follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Arkansas courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine custody
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief
• Juveniles have additional protections under the Arkansas Juvenile Code — courts closely examine the voluntariness of juvenile confessions
• Arkansas courts have upheld that voluntary, spontaneous statements (not in response to interrogation) are admissible even without Miranda

California follows federal Miranda rules but provides additional protections:

• Minors: Under SB 203 (signed 2021, effective January 1, 2022), youth 17 and under must consult with an attorney before waiving Miranda rightsThe warning police must read before questioning you while you are in custody — your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. If they don't give the warning, statements you make during custodial questioning usually can't be used against you in court.. This expanded the prior SB 395 (2018) protection, which only covered youth under 16. This is one of the strongest youth Miranda protections in the country.
• Language access: California requires Miranda warnings be given in a language the suspect understands. Failure to do so can result in suppression of statements.
• California Constitution: Article I, Section 15 independently guarantees the right against self-incrimination, providing a parallel state-level protection.

Colorado follows the federal Miranda standard with important state-specific protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation by Colorado law enforcement
• The Colorado Constitution, Art. II, § 18 protects against compelled self-incrimination
• Colorado has enhanced protections for juveniles: under CRS § 19-2.5-203, juveniles must be advised of their rights, and efforts must be made to contact a parent or guardian
• Colorado requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations for certain crimes (CRS § 16-3-601)
• Colorado courts apply the totality of the circumstances test for voluntariness of Miranda waivers
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible in Colorado courts

Connecticut follows the federal Miranda standard with additional state protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Connecticut courts may provide broader protections under the state constitution (Art. I, § 8 — due process)
• Connecticut enacted the PROTECT Act in 2019, requiring recording of custodial interrogations for serious felonies
• Juveniles have enhanced protections — Connecticut courts closely scrutinize the voluntariness of juvenile statements
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief

Delaware follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Delaware courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine custody
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• Delaware has been moving toward requiring recorded interrogations for serious felonies
• Juveniles have additional protections — Delaware law provides that a parent/guardian should be notified and courts scrutinize juvenile confessions closely

D.C. follows federal Miranda rules with some additional local protections:

• D.C. Code § 5-115.01 to .05: D.C. has its own statutory rights-advisory requirements for arrested persons that supplement federal Miranda.
• Electronic recording: The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations as a matter of department policy.
• Youth protections: Under D.C. law, juveniles must be informed of their rights in age-appropriate language, and efforts must be made to contact a parent or guardian before questioning.
• Body camera footage: D.C.'s body-worn camera program (one of the largest in the country) may capture interactions where Miranda warnings are or aren't given, providing important evidence.

Florida follows standard federal Miranda rules with some state specifics:

• Florida Constitution Art. I, § 9: Guarantees the right against self-incrimination. However, Florida voters amended the state constitution in 1982 (Truth in Evidence amendment, Art. I, § 12) to align state search and confession law with federal standards, limiting judicial expansion beyond federal protections.
• Juvenile protections (Fla. Stat. § 985.101): Juveniles must be informed of their Miranda rightsThe warning police must read before questioning you while you are in custody — your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. If they don't give the warning, statements you make during custodial questioning usually can't be used against you in court. in language appropriate for their age. A parent or guardian should be notified, but their absence does not automatically invalidate a waiver.
• No mandatory recording: Florida does not require electronic recording of interrogations statewide, though some departments follow recording policies voluntarily.

Hawaii follows the federal Miranda standard with state constitutional protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation
• The Hawaii Constitution, Art. I, § 10 provides the right against self-incrimination, which courts apply alongside federal Miranda requirements
• Hawaii courts apply the totality-of-the-circumstances test for custody determination
• Statements obtained without Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• Hawaii's unique island jurisdiction means encounters with police may involve county police departments (Honolulu PD, Maui PD, Hawaii PD, Kauai PD) — each with its own procedures

Idaho follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation
• Idaho courts apply the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine custody
• Statements obtained without Miranda warnings are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief
• Idaho has a strong law enforcement culture — knowing your rights is particularly important during police encounters
• Juveniles have additional protections; courts scrutinize the voluntariness of juvenile confessions closely

Illinois provides additional Miranda protections beyond federal law:

• Electronic recording required (725 ILCS 5/103-2.1): Illinois requires electronic recording of all custodial interrogations at police stations for most felony cases. Unrecorded statements are presumed inadmissible.
• Juvenile protections: Under 705 ILCS 405/5-170, juveniles under 15 cannot waive Miranda rightsThe warning police must read before questioning you while you are in custody — your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. If they don't give the warning, statements you make during custodial questioning usually can't be used against you in court. without consulting with an attorney first. Youth aged 15-17 must have a parent, guardian, or attorney present.
• Illinois Constitution Art. I, § 10: Independently guarantees the right against self-incrimination, providing a parallel state constitutional protection.

Indiana follows the federal Miranda standard with state constitutional protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation by Indiana law enforcement
• The Indiana Constitution, Art. 1, § 14 provides the right against self-incrimination
• IN courts apply the federal standard for determining custody and voluntariness of waivers
• Indiana has protections for juveniles: under IC § 31-32-5, juveniles have the right to be informed of their rights in language they can understand, and a parent, guardian, or custodian should be notified
• Indiana courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including age, education, and experience
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible in Indiana courts

Iowa follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Iowa courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine custody
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• Iowa requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations for serious felonies under Iowa Code § 812.2
• Juveniles have additional protections — Iowa Code § 232.11 requires notification of parents/guardians

Kansas follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Kansas courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine custody
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• Kansas has moved toward requiring electronic recording of interrogations for certain felonies
• Juveniles have additional protections under the Kansas Juvenile Justice Code

Louisiana follows the federal Miranda standard with strong state constitutional protections:

• Louisiana Constitution, Art. I, § 13 provides a right against self-incrimination
• Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation
• Louisiana has enhanced juvenile protections: juveniles must be advised of rights and have a parent/guardian or attorney consulted
• Louisiana mandates electronic recording of custodial interrogations for certain felonies (La. R.S. § 15:453)

Maine follows the federal Miranda standard with state constitutional protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation
• The Maine Constitution, Art. I, § 6 provides protection against self-incrimination
• Maine courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine custody
• Statements obtained without proper warnings are inadmissible
• Maine has enhanced juvenile protections — the Juvenile Code requires special considerations for youth interrogations
• Maine courts emphasize that waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary

Maryland follows the federal Miranda standard with important state-specific provisions:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation by Maryland law enforcement
• The Maryland Declaration of Rights, Art. 22, protects against compelled self-incrimination
• Maryland has enhanced protections for juveniles: under MD Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 3-8A-14, juveniles must be informed of their rights, and a parent, guardian, or attorney should be present
• Maryland requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations for certain felonies (MD Code, Criminal Procedure § 2-402)
• Maryland courts apply the totality of the circumstances test for voluntariness of Miranda waivers
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are inadmissible in Maryland courts

Michigan follows the federal Miranda standard with important state-specific protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation by Michigan law enforcement
• Michigan courts apply the federal standard for determining "custody" — whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave
• Michigan has enhanced protections for juveniles: under MCL § 764.27, juveniles must be provided the opportunity to consult with a parent or guardian before interrogation
• Michigan courts have been protective of the right to counsel once invoked — police must cease questioning
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible in Michigan courts

Minnesota follows the federal Miranda standard with enhanced protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation
• Minnesota courts apply the Scales factors (State v. Scales) to determine custody — considering location, duration, nature of questioning, and degree of restraint
• Juveniles have enhanced protections: under Minn. Stat. § 260B.163, a parent or guardian must be notified and present when practicable
• Minnesota requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations for certain crimes (Minn. Stat. § 634.35)

Missouri follows the federal Miranda standard with state-specific considerations:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation by Missouri law enforcement
• The Missouri Constitution, Art. I, § 19 protects against compelled self-incrimination
• MO courts apply the federal standard for custody determinations and waiver analysis
• Missouri has protections for juveniles: under RSMo § 211.059, law enforcement must attempt to notify the juvenile's parent or guardian prior to interrogation
• Missouri courts consider the totality of the circumstances in evaluating whether Miranda waivers were voluntary
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible in Missouri courts

Nebraska follows the federal Miranda standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation by law enforcement
• Nebraska courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine whether a person is "in custody"
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief
• Juveniles in Nebraska have additional protections — parents or guardians should be contacted, and courts closely scrutinize the voluntariness of juvenile statements
• You have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney at all stages of interrogation

Nevada follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Nevada courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine custody
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• Nevada has moved toward requiring electronic recording of custodial interrogations for certain felonies
• Juveniles have additional protections under the Nevada Juvenile Justice chapter

New Hampshire follows the federal Miranda standard with strong state constitutional protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation
• The New Hampshire Constitution, Part I, Art. 15 provides protection against self-incrimination
• NH courts apply the totality-of-the-circumstances test for custody
• Juveniles have enhanced protections — a parent or guardian should be present during interrogation
• New Hampshire courts have been protective of defendants' rights, requiring clear and voluntary waivers

New Jersey provides significantly stronger Miranda protections than federal law:

• State v. W.B., 205 N.J. 588 (2011): The New Jersey Supreme Court requires that all custodial interrogations be electronically recorded. Failure to record creates a presumption that the statement is inadmissible.
• Broader definition of custody: NJ courts apply a more expansive definition of "custody" than federal courts, meaning Miranda protections kick in earlier.
• State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (2000): For juveniles, NJ courts closely scrutinize whether a Miranda waiver was truly knowing and voluntary when a parent or interested adult was absent. Statements made under these circumstances may be suppressed.

New Mexico follows the federal Miranda standard with strong state constitutional protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• New Mexico Constitution, Art. II, § 14 provides robust protections against self-incrimination
• New Mexico courts require electronic recording of custodial interrogations
• Juveniles have enhanced protections under the New Mexico Children's Code
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible

New York follows federal Miranda rules with some important procedural differences:

• Right to counsel (indelible right): Once a New York attorney enters a case — by filing a notice of appearance or by being present — police cannot question the suspect outside the attorney's presence, even if the suspect wants to talk. This is broader than federal Miranda.
• CPL § 60.45: New York's statutory suppression rules independently require Miranda-like warnings. Statements obtained in violation can be suppressed under state law even if they'd survive federal Miranda analysis.
• Prompt arraignment: NY requires prompt arraignment after arrest. Unnecessarily delayed arraignment (used to continue interrogation) can result in suppression of statements.

North Carolina follows the federal Miranda v. Arizona standard with these state-specific considerations:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation by NC law enforcement
• NC courts apply the federal "totality of the circumstances" test to determine if someone was in custody
• Under NC law, juveniles (under 18) have enhanced protections: a parent, guardian, or attorney should be present during interrogation
• NC General Statute § 15A-211 requires law enforcement to record custodial interrogations for certain felonies, which helps protect Miranda rightsThe warning police must read before questioning you while you are in custody — your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. If they don't give the warning, statements you make during custodial questioning usually can't be used against you in court.
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible in NC courts

North Dakota follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• North Dakota courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• North Dakota requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations (N.D. Cent. Code § 29-29-18)
• Juveniles have additional protections under North Dakota's Juvenile Court Act

Oklahoma follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation
• Oklahoma courts follow the federal standard
• Juveniles have protections under the Oklahoma Juvenile Code — a parent or guardian should be notified
• Oklahoma does not mandate statewide recording of interrogations

Oregon follows the federal Miranda standard with enhanced state protections:

• Oregon Constitution, Art. I, § 12 provides a right against self-incrimination
• Oregon has enhanced juvenile protections — juveniles must be advised of rights and have access to a parent or attorney
• Oregon requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations for certain crimes (ORS § 133.400)

Pennsylvania follows federal Miranda rules with notable state additions:

• PA Constitution Art. I, § 9: Independently protects against compelled self-incrimination. Pennsylvania courts can provide greater protection than the federal standard.
• Commonwealth v. DiStefano (2012): PA Supreme Court emphasized the importance of voluntariness in Miranda waivers, scrutinizing the totality of circumstances carefully.
• Juvenile protections: Under the Juvenile Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 6338), juvenile statements are inadmissible unless the minor was informed of rights in age-appropriate language and had a meaningful opportunity to consult with a parent or attorney.
• No statewide recording mandate: Unlike Illinois and NJ, Pennsylvania does not have a statewide requirement to record interrogations, though many departments do voluntarily.

Rhode Island follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Rhode Island courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• Rhode Island has moved toward requiring recording of interrogations
• Juveniles have additional protections — Rhode Island law requires parental notification and courts closely scrutinize juvenile confessions

South Carolina follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation
• SC courts follow the federal totality-of-the-circumstances test
• Juveniles have protections under the SC Children's Code — a parent or guardian should be notified
• SC does not mandate recording of interrogations statewide, though some agencies do voluntarily
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible

South Dakota follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• South Dakota courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• South Dakota does not require electronic recording of interrogations by statute
• Juveniles have additional protections — courts scrutinize juvenile confessions closely

Tennessee follows the federal Miranda standard with state-specific considerations:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation by Tennessee law enforcement
• TN courts apply the federal "totality of the circumstances" test for custody determinations
• Tennessee provides enhanced protections for juveniles under the Tennessee Juvenile Justice Reform Act — juveniles must be informed of their rights in age-appropriate language
• TN law requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations for certain offenses (TCA § 40-14-207)
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible in Tennessee courts
• Tennessee courts have held that once a suspect invokes their right to counsel, all interrogation must cease

Texas follows standard federal Miranda rules with some notable specifics:

• Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 38.22: Texas has its own statutory version of Miranda. Oral statements made during custodial interrogation are generally inadmissible unless they are electronically recorded.
• Recording requirement: Statements from custodial interrogation must be recorded to be admissible in many circumstances. This is stricter than federal law, which has no recording requirement.
• Juvenile protections: Minors in Texas must be warned by a magistrate (not just police) before making a statement, and the statement must be given before a magistrate to be admissible.

Utah follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Utah courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine custody
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• Utah does not require electronic recording of all interrogations by statute, though many departments do so voluntarily
• Juveniles have additional protections under the Utah Juvenile Court Act

Vermont follows the federal Miranda standard with strong state constitutional protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Vermont Constitution, Ch. I, Art. 10 provides broad protections against self-incrimination
• Vermont courts may provide broader protections under the state constitution
• Vermont requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations for serious felonies
• Juveniles have enhanced protections under Vermont's juvenile justice provisions

Virginia follows the federal Miranda standard with state-specific procedural considerations:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation by Virginia law enforcement
• Virginia courts follow the federal totality-of-the-circumstances test for determining custody
• Virginia has enhanced protections for juveniles: under Va. Code § 16.1-247, a juvenile must be advised of rights and, when practicable, a parent or guardian should be notified before questioning
• Virginia courts carefully scrutinize the voluntariness of confessions
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible in Virginia courts
• Virginia's recording of interrogations is not mandated statewide but is increasingly adopted by agencies

Washington follows the federal Miranda standard with additional state protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation
• Washington courts apply a more protective standard for voluntariness of confessions under the Washington Constitution, Art. I, § 9
• Washington has strong protections for juveniles: under RCW 13.40.140, juveniles must be advised of their rights and have access to a parent, guardian, or attorney before questioning
• The 2021 Washington law (HB 1140, codified as RCW 13.40.740) requires attorney consultation before interrogation for all juveniles under 18 — statements obtained without this are subject to suppression
• Washington courts suppress statements obtained through coercive techniques more readily than some other states

Wisconsin follows the federal Miranda standard with state constitutional protections:

• Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation by Wisconsin law enforcement
• The Wisconsin Constitution, Art. I, § 8 protects against compelled self-incrimination
• WI courts apply the federal standard for custody and waiver determinations
• Wisconsin has protections for juveniles: under Wis. Stat. § 938.243, officers must attempt to contact the juvenile's parent or guardian and inform the juvenile of their rights
• Wisconsin requires electronic recording of custodial interrogations for felonies (Wis. Stat. § 972.115)
• Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are generally inadmissible in Wisconsin courts

Wyoming follows the federal Miranda standard:

• Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogation
• Wyoming courts use the totality-of-the-circumstances test
• Statements obtained without proper Miranda warnings are inadmissible
• Wyoming does not require electronic recording of interrogations by statute
• Juveniles have protections under the Wyoming Juvenile Justice Act