Final answer:
Interrogating suspects without notifying them of their right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination is a practice that can violate the Fifth Amendment. Suspects are entitled to Miranda warnings and due process, including the right to understand the reasons for their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. Such police practices can lead to the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence and affect court proceedings.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from self-incrimination and guarantees the right to due process. Notably, the landmark cases of Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart highlighted the concern that suspects were not informed of their right to counsel during interrogation. This practice can, indeed, violate the Fifth Amendment as suspects must be aware of their rights, including against self-incrimination and the entitlement to an attorney.
These rights are encapsulated in the Miranda warnings, which became a standard police procedure following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Furthermore, a writ of habeas corpus ensures that a person held in jail has the right to be brought before the court to understand the reasons for their detention, reinforcing the intent of the Fifth Amendment to prevent unlawful or indefinite detention without due process.
In regular criminal justice proceedings, individuals are to be informed of the charges, their right to counsel, and the opportunity to enter a plea during a hearing. Failure to notify the accused of these rights can lead to the exclusion of evidence obtained during an unconstitutional interrogation and affect the admissibility of inculpatory statements in court. Therefore, the police practice of questioning without informing the individual of their rights breaches the Fifth Amendment and undermines the justice system's integrity.