When is it necessary to "Mirandize" a person?

The necessity to "Mirandize" a person arises specifically when they are in custody and subject to interrogation. This requirement stems from the Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which aims to protect an individual's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The key components of this situation are "custody" and "interrogation."

Custody implies that a reasonable person in the same situation would feel they are not free to leave, while interrogation refers to the questioning conducted by law enforcement aimed at eliciting an incriminating response. Therefore, Mirandizing ensures that the individual is aware of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before any questioning begins.

Traffic stops, voluntary confessions, and arrests do not automatically necessitate the reading of Miranda rights unless the criteria of interrogation while in custody are met. This highlights the importance of understanding the specific legal conditions under which Miranda warnings must be provided.