"You have the right to remain silent."

Few Supreme Court decisions have produced words as instantly recognizable as Miranda v. Arizona. But sixty years after the landmark 1966 ruling, the constitutional argument behind those words is still very much alive.

On this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, Bill Bernardoni and Steve Herman examine how Miranda changed police interrogation, why the Supreme Court believed a new safeguard was necessary, and whether the Fifth Amendment actually required the rule the Court created.

Dr. Richard Leo, professor of law and psychology at the University of San Francisco, takes us through the history of police interrogation — from the physical brutality of the old "third degree" to psychological coercion, false confessions, and the modern interrogation room. He explains why the Court sought a clear rule and why, despite early warnings that Miranda would cripple law enforcement, police departments largely adapted.

Then Professor Tom Hogan of South Texas College of Law approaches the case from a different constitutional perspective. Before Miranda, courts already excluded involuntary confessions obtained through physical or extreme psychological coercion. Hogan asks whether the Warren Court went beyond the text and original meaning of the Fifth Amendment by creating an additional constitutional rule.

Along the way, we revisit the Supreme Court's later decision in Dickerson v. United States, the continuing importance of confessions in criminal investigations, and the tension between protecting suspects and giving law enforcement the tools to solve serious crimes.

Sixty years later, Miranda remains the law — and part of the American vocabulary. But the deeper question remains: even if Miranda is a good rule, was it the Supreme Court's rule to make?