The correct answer is that the change to policing that resulted from Miranda v. Arizona was that detained criminal suspects, prior to being questioned by police officers, must be informed of their constitutional rights to get an attorney and against self-incrimination. The case began during 1936, where an Arizona resident was detained and charged of robbery and kidnapping. Ernesto Miranda, the criminal suspect, had a history of mental illness and did not continue attending school beyond 9th grade. The police said that during the interrogation Miranda had confessed committing the crimes, but he did not have an attorney present with him during the process. He was sentenced to prison, and in 1966 he appealed to the Supreme Court, stating that the way the police had obtained his confession was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the confession could not be used as evidence in his trial because it was obtained in an unconstitutional manner.