In the 1968 case of Orozco v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Salvador James Orozco, who was convicted for robbery by assault based on a confession he made while under arrest but not informed of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning (Miranda Rights). The court held that these rights apply from the moment a person is taken into custody and are not dependent on formal charges being filed or an interrogation taking place at a police station. Therefore, it found that Mr. Orozco's confession should have been excluded from evidence because it was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel as defined by Miranda v. Arizona (1966). This decision reaffirmed the importance of informing individuals about their constitutional protections upon arrest.

In the dissenting opinion for Orozco v. Texas, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to extend Miranda rights to suspects not formally arrested but merely "deprived of their freedom by authorities" was too broad and impractical. He contended that this would make it difficult for police officers to do their job effectively as they could never be sure when a suspect is considered in custody and thus entitled to Miranda warnings. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how this ruling might affect other routine police procedures such as traffic stops or questioning witnesses at crime scenes where individuals may feel constrained by authority figures even though they are not technically under arrest. Ultimately, Justice White believed that the court should have maintained a more narrow interpretation of custodial interrogation consistent with previous rulings which required formal arrest or its equivalent before Miranda warnings were necessary.