Answer:
The protection against self-incrimination; it informs them that speaking to law enforcement could incriminate them.
Explanation:
In the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, the court examined the rights protected in the
Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a
crime victim identified him in a police lineup. The police officers questioning him did not inform
him of his Fifth Amendment right that prevents government from forcing citizens to give
evidence against themselves. He also was not informed of his Sixth Amendment right to the
assistance of an attorney. In 1966, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and ruled in favor
of Miranda. As a result, police officers now read the Miranda warning to suspects before they are
arrested. This helps ensure suspects understand they have the right to not answer questions, or
say anything at all, if they choose. However, if a suspect chooses to speak despite the Miranda
warning, what they say could be used in court. The Miranda warning also explains that suspects
have the right speak to an attorney.