The ruling in Miranda v. Arizona arose from the 1963 arrest of Ernesto Miranda, who was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman in Phoenix, Arizona. During interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crime, but he had not been informed of his right to remain silent or the right to legal counsel. His confession was used as evidence during his trial, and he was convicted. Miranda appealed his conviction, arguing that his confession was obtained unconstitutionally without the necessary warnings about his rights, which led to the case being brought before the Supreme Court.

On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court delivered a 5-4 decision that established the necessity for police to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion, outlining that the lack of procedural safeguards in interrogations often resulted in undue coercion and violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. The Court's decision mandated that police must now inform suspects they have the right to remain silent and that any statement made can be used against them in court. Additionally, suspects must be informed of their right to have an attorney present during questioning.

The Miranda ruling initiated changes in police procedures across the country and became a significant aspect of American criminal law. It prompted law enforcement agencies to implement 'Miranda warnings' as a standard practice during arrests. The decision faced mixed reactions but solidified the principles of due process and the rights of individuals within the legal system. The phrase “You have the right to remain silent” became widely recognized as synonymous with a suspect's rights during legal proceedings. Over the years, the ruling has faced various challenges and modifications, but Miranda rights remain fundamental to the justice system in the United States.