米兰达诉亚利桑那州案（英語：Miranda v. Arizona，384（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 384）U.S.436 (1966)）是联邦最高法院于1966年审理并最终以5比4作出判决之里程碑案件。在判决中，联邦最高法院规定在实施逮捕和审讯嫌疑人时，警方必须及时提醒嫌疑人以下事项：1、可保持緘默；2、任何之陳述內容，將被呈庭作為不利於己之證據；3、可選任辯護人陪同在場，或提供法律諮詢；4、如無資力選任辯護人，偵訊前得請求指定辯護人為其辯護。这样的四条内容就是著名的米兰达告诫[注 1]。同时判决中规定，警方在告知嫌疑人拥有以上权利后，须确定嫌疑人的确已经明白其中意义，如果嫌疑人仍自愿配合警方，其后的供词及根据供词所获得之任何证据才能在审判中呈庭，否则无效。联邦最高法院对这一案件的判决是和另外三个案件同時作出，这三个案件分别是韦斯托弗诉美国案（英語：Westover v. United States）、弗吉尼拉诉纽约州案（英語：Vignera v. State of New York）和加利福尼亚州诉史都华案（英語：State of California v. Stewart）。
^米兰达告诫全文是：“可保持緘默；任何之陳述內容，將被呈庭作為不利於己之證據；可選任辯護人陪同在場，或提供法律諮詢；如無資力選任辯護人，偵訊前得請求指定辯護人為其辯護。”原文是：“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 talk to a lawyer and have him present while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before questioning, if you wish one.”Susan D. Gold. Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Suspects' Rights. New York: Twenty-first Century Books. 1995: 10.
^原文是“I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.”
^米兰达对抢劫案的口供也同样上诉到亚利桑纳州最高法院，且同样被驳回，见State v. Miranda, 401 P.2d 716。不过这个案件之后并没有上诉到联邦最高法院。
^原文是：The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
^原文是：If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.
^原文是：consider in each case whether the police officer prior to custodial interrogation added the warning that the suspect might have counsel present at the interrogation and, further, that a court would appoint one at his request if he was too poor to employ counsel. In the absence of warnings, the burden would be on the State to prove that counsel was knowingly and intelligently waived or that in the totality of the circumstances, including the failure to give the necessary warnings, the confession was clearly voluntary.
^原文是：I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process. In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity.
