What can happen if police question a suspect in custody without giving Miranda warnings?

If police question a suspect in custody without providing Miranda warnings, the primary consequence is that any statements obtained during that interrogation are generally inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial.12

The U.S. Supreme Court established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that these procedural safeguards are necessary to protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. However, it is important to note that the failure to administer these warnings does not constitute a violation of a suspect's constitutional rights that would allow for a civil lawsuit against the officer.132

Over time, the Court has established several exceptions where non-Mirandized statements may still be used, such as:
* Impeachment: Statements may be used to impeach a defendant's credibility if they testify on their own behalf.3
* Public Safety: Questions reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for public safety are exempt.3
* Inevitable Discovery: Evidence derived from a confession may be admissible if it would have been discovered through continued investigation regardless of the statement.3
* Custody Definitions: The requirements only apply when a suspect is truly "in custody," a term the Court has interpreted narrowly in various contexts.3