Orozco v. Texas

The State argued that since Orozco was interrogated on his own bed, in familiar surroundings, the officers were not required to advise him of his Miranda rights before they interrogated him. While Miranda involved a situation where a suspect was interrogated at the police station, in its opinion the Supreme Court emphasized the absolute necessity for officers interrogating people “in custody” to first advise them of the warnings provided in Miranda. The Miranda opinion held that the warnings were required when the person being interrogated was “in custody at the station or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” According to the testimony of one of the officers, from the moment he gave his name, Orozco was not free to go where he pleased but was “under arrest.” For this reason, Orozco’s admissions, without the benefit of Miranda warnings, were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.