The constitutional framework governing police interrogation in Michigan begins with Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use a statement obtained during custodial interrogation unless the person was previously warned of the right to remain silent, told that statements may be used against them, informed of the right to have an attorney present, and told that counsel will be appointed if they cannot afford one. The threshold question in any Miranda challenge is whether the person was "in custody" at the time of the statement—custody meaning either formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest. Stansbury v California, 511 US 318 (1994).

Michigan courts have developed significant case law on the custody and interrogation requirements of Miranda. The criminal defendant's right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment–based Miranda framework and under the Sixth Amendment framework are analytically distinct. The Sixth Amendment right "does not generally attach until adversary judicial proceedings are formally initiated, even if the government has sufficient evidence to arrest the suspect." People v Wade, ___ Mich ___ (2024). By contrast, Miranda's Fifth Amendment–based right to counsel during custodial interrogation applies from the moment custody begins, regardless of whether formal charges have been filed. A statement obtained through custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda is inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief. The defendant's statement may also be challenged on the separate, broader ground that it was involuntary under the totality of circumstances test applicable to pre-Miranda and non-custodial questioning.

Waiver of Miranda rights must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. "A waiver is intelligently made when the Miranda warnings are explained" to the subject in a manner the subject can understand. People v Brannon, 194 Mich App 121 (1992). Where the defendant has a hearing impairment or limited English proficiency, the adequacy of the Miranda warnings as actually communicated is subject to challenge; Michigan courts have held that a hearing-impaired defendant's waiver of Miranda rights must be established through evidence that the defendant comprehended the rights and intelligently waived them. People v Brannon, 194 Mich App 121 (1992).

Invocation of the right to counsel or the right to remain silent must be unambiguous to be effective. Once an unambiguous invocation is made, all questioning must cease and any statement obtained in violation of that invocation is subject to suppression. Defense counsel evaluating a statement made by a client to police should carefully review the audio or video recording of the interview—which Detroit police are required to make in most felony investigations—for evidence of inadequate Miranda warnings, ambiguous or coerced waivers, and questioning that continued after an arguable invocation of rights. The obligation to suppress statements obtained in violation of Miranda protects the defendant not only from use of the statements as substantive evidence but also limits their use for impeachment purposes under the standard established in Harris v New York, 401 US 222 (1971), which allows limited impeachment use of statements obtained in technical violation of Miranda provided they were otherwise voluntary.

Persons who have been asked to speak with police should understand that the decision is entirely theirs, that exercising constitutional rights is not evidence of guilt, and that an experienced criminal defense attorney can accompany them to any interview, monitor the questioning, advise them on which questions to answer, and assert privilege as to any question that risks incrimination. Attorney William Maze regularly accompanies clients to police interviews and is available to do so on short notice. The best time to call is before the interview—not after a statement has already been made.