Final answer:
The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona required police to inform suspects of their rights before an interrogation, establishing the practice of issuing 'Miranda warnings'. These warnings inform suspects of the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and that their statements can be used in court. This decision protected suspects' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and ensured confessions are voluntary and informed.
Step-by-step explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
The landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona addressed the issue of custodial interrogations and established the requirement for police to inform suspects of their rights before interrogation, a practice now known as issuing Miranda warnings. The case centered around Ernesto Miranda, who had been convicted based on a confession obtained without being told of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision led to a reversal of Miranda's conviction and established guidelines for the protection of a suspect's constitutional rights during the process of arrest and interrogation.
In the decision, the Court held that the prosecution could not use statements from an interrogation unless procedural safeguards were demonstrated to protect against self-incrimination. This helped to establish a set of verbal warnings that law enforcement must provide to suspects, which includes the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the understanding that anything said can be used against them in a court of law. Notably, if the suspect cannot afford an attorney, one must be provided. These requirements are intended to prevent coercion and ensure any confession or statements made by a suspect are voluntary and informed.
The Miranda rights have become a fundamental aspect of police procedure, ensuring that individual rights are protected and that suspects are aware of their rights during the critical stage of a police investigation.