What makes a waiver of Miranda rights voluntary, knowing, and intelligent?

Under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, suspects in police custody may waive their rights to remain silent and to consult with an attorney. However, for such a waiver to be considered valid and for the resulting statements to be admissible in court, the prosecution must demonstrate that the waiver was performed "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently".12

While the Court established these criteria as essential safeguards to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the legal interpretation of these terms has evolved through subsequent jurisprudence. Notably, the Court has clarified that a waiver does not necessarily require an express statement; for instance, in Berghuis v. Thompkins, it was held that a suspect who has been informed of their rights may waive the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police, provided they have not "unambiguously" invoked their right to remain silent.32

Ultimately, the determination of whether a waiver meets these standards depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation.3