California v. Prysock
| California v. Prysock | |
|---|---|
| Decided June 29, 1981 | |
| Full case name | State of California v. Randall James Prysock |
| Citations | 453 U.S. 55 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District |
| Holding | |
| There is no rule requiring that Miranda warnings need to be precise to withstand scrutiny as long as the warnings are effectual. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by Stewart, Powell, Rehnquist, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution | |
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 55 (1981) was a per curiam United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that as long as the message of a Miranda warning was adequately communicated, it does not need to be precisely phrased.