trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

The US Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, requiring warnings about the right to silence and to counsel before custodial police interrogation.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
9 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that the US Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, requiring warnings about the right to silence and to counsel before custodial police interrogation?

Yes. Multiple independent reference and peer-reviewed sources state that the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 and required police to warn suspects, before custodial interrogation, of their rights to silence and to counsel.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 9 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence for · 9
Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia
Get citation
Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

See more details
More for · 8
The Routledge International Handbook of Legal and Investigative Psychology
2019
Get citation
Bull, R. & Blandón-Gitlin, I. (2019). The Routledge International Handbook of Legal and Investigative Psychology. books.google.com. http://books.google.com/books?id=jRmvDwAAQBAJ&dq=The+US+Supreme+Court+decided+Miranda+v.+Arizona+in+1966,+requiring+warnings+about+the+right+to+silence+and+to+counsel+before+custodial+police+interrogation.&hl=&as_pt=BOOKS&source=gbs_api

L'évolution paradoxale du droit de garder le silence : analyse de l'argumentation juridique de deux arrêts de la Cour suprême des États-Unis Miranda (1966) et Berghuis (2010)
2013
Get citation
L'évolution paradoxale du droit de garder le silence : analyse de l'argumentation juridique de deux arrêts de la Cour suprême des États-Unis Miranda (1966) et Berghuis (2010). (2013). univ-lyon3.hal.science. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.3315

Teaching Miranda v. Arizona at its 50th Anniversary
2016
Get citation
Teaching Miranda v. Arizona at its 50th Anniversary. (2016). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.66392/003777216817821811

"Participating Miranda"
1977
Get citation
"Participating Miranda". (1977). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112877702300108

Miranda at 50
2016
Get citation
Miranda at 50. (2016). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416665097

Different Strokes for Different but Reasonable Folks: Comparison of Legally Relevant Observers' Perceptions of Custody
2019
Get citation
Different Strokes for Different but Reasonable Folks: Comparison of Legally Relevant Observers' Perceptions of Custody. (2019). gateway.proquest.com. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:13866051

THE CONCEPT AND THE CONTENT OF THE INTERROGATION OF THE SUSPECT IN CUSTODY IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES
2024
Get citation
Simović, M. N. & Simović, V. M. (2024). THE CONCEPT AND THE CONTENT OF THE INTERROGATION OF THE SUSPECT IN CUSTODY IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.7251/god1840011s

(Salinas v Texas) v (Miranda v Arizona)
2023
Get citation
(Salinas v Texas) v (Miranda v Arizona). (2023). law.stackexchange.com. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/91137/salinas-v-texas-v-miranda-v-arizona

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work