Miranda Rights Script: The Full Warning, Word for Word

Here is the full Miranda rights script — the Miranda warning script most U.S. police read from a card — word for word. You can copy it, print it, or keep it on your phone. Below the script you will find why the wording can legally vary, when police actually have to read it, and the words you should say to protect yourself.

The Miranda rights script, word for word

This is the common, widely used version. There is no single official national wording (more on that below), but this is the script most agencies read:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?

Copy the script

Many departments add two more sentences that the Supreme Court has treated as important in practice:

You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have one present with you while you are being questioned. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.

Why there is no single official Miranda warning

The warning comes from the 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona. That decision did not hand police a script to read verbatim. Instead, it required that before any custodial interrogation, officers convey four core ideas in a way a person can understand:

• You have the right to remain silent.
• Anything you say can be used against you in court.
• You have the right to an attorney.
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before questioning if you wish.

Because the Court cared about substance, not magic words, the exact phrasing varies from agency to agency. In Duckworth v. Eagan (1989) and Florida v. Powell (2010), the Supreme Court upheld warnings that used different and arguably clumsier language, holding that a warning is valid as long as it reasonably conveys those core rights. So the script on a Texas patrol officer's card may read a little differently from one in Ohio, and both can be perfectly legal.

When the warning is actually required

Television gets this badly wrong. Police do not have to read Miranda the instant they arrest you, and failing to read it does not automatically void an arrest or get a case dismissed. Miranda is triggered only by custodial interrogation — meaning two things are true at once: you are in custody (under arrest or its functional equivalent), and police are questioning you.

If you are not in custody, or police are not interrogating you, no warning is required. Under Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), a routine traffic stop or a brief Terry stop generally is not custody, so officers can ask questions there without Mirandizing you. And spontaneous statements you blurt out on your own are admissible because no one interrogated you.

The only direct consequence of a Miranda violation is that the un-warned statement usually cannot be used against you in the prosecution's case-in-chief. That is the Fifth Amendment remedy. It does not mean you walk free, and under Vega v. Tekoh (2022) you generally cannot sue an officer for damages just because they failed to read you your rights.

The words that actually protect you

Here is the part the script leaves out, and it is the most important thing on this page. Simply staying quiet is not enough to invoke your right to remain silent. You have to say so, clearly and out loud.

In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), a suspect sat almost completely silent through nearly three hours of questioning, then made one incriminating statement near the end. The Supreme Court held that his silence did not count as invoking the right — and because he later spoke, he had waived it. In Salinas v. Texas (2013), the Court went further, allowing a prosecutor to use a suspect's silence against him because he had not expressly claimed the privilege.

The lesson is simple: ambiguity helps the government. To shut down questioning, use plain, unambiguous words. Something like:

I am going to remain silent. I want a lawyer.

The request for counsel matters just as much. Under Edwards v. Arizona (1981), once you clearly ask for a lawyer, police must stop questioning until counsel is present or you re-initiate contact. But under Davis v. United States (1994), the request has to be unambiguous. Saying Maybe I should talk to a lawyer is not enough; officers can keep going. Say it as a statement, not a question: I want a lawyer.

What to actually do during an encounter

• Stay calm and polite. You can invoke your rights respectfully. You do not need to argue, explain, or justify yourself.
• Say the words out loud. “I am invoking my right to remain silent, and I want a lawyer.” Then stop talking — really stop.
• Do not be talked out of it. Officers may legally use deception and may keep chatting after you invoke. You can repeat: “I have a lawyer now. I am not answering questions.”
• Do not sign a waiver. Many departments use a written form that waives your rights. You are never required to sign it.
• Remember it is a one-way street. Talking rarely helps; it almost always gives the prosecution more to work with. You can always decide to talk later, with a lawyer — you can never un-say something.

Keep it on a card

Because the wording is not fixed, you do not have to memorize the police version. You only need your half. Many people keep a short note on their phone or wallet: I am exercising my right to remain silent. I want a lawyer. I do not consent to any searches. Those three sentences cover the Fifth Amendment, the right to counsel, and your Fourth Amendment position on a consent search in one breath.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Miranda's core requirements are federal, but custody rules, interrogation tactics, and procedures vary by state and by the specific facts of your situation. For advice about your own case, talk to a licensed attorney in your state.

The law behind your rights

The Fifth Amendment (applied to state and local police through the Fourteenth Amendment) lets you refuse to answer questions that could incriminate you, but you should clearly say out loud that you are invoking your right to remain silent, because simply staying quiet may not legally count as invoking it.

Constitutional basis: Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment. Your state constitution may add further protections.

Key court cases:

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) — Police must warn a person in custody of the right to remain silent and to counsel before interrogation, or statements are inadmissible.
• Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) — A suspect must unambiguously invoke the right to remain silent; merely staying quiet does not invoke it and can be deemed a waiver.
• Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013) — Pre-custody silence not paired with an express invocation of the Fifth Amendment may be used against a suspect at trial.
• Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) — Miranda is a constitutional rule that Congress cannot overrule by statute.

These are landmark federal cases that establish the rights described above. How they apply can depend on your state, the federal circuit you are in, and the specific facts of an encounter. This is general legal information, not legal advice.