Final answer:
Suspects must be informed of their rights through a Miranda warning, and any waiver of these rights must be knowing and intelligent. Failure to notify suspects of their rights may render their statements inadmissible. However, suspects can still waive their rights even after invoking them, and explicit invocation is necessary for protection.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question "Does the suspect have to provide a knowing and intelligent waiver of their rights?" relates to whether police practices infringe upon the Fifth Amendment rights of an individual. The landmark case Miranda v. Arizona established that the right to remain silent and the right to counsel are fundamental protections against self-incrimination. Therefore, suspects must be informed of these rights through a Miranda warning. If a suspect decides to waive these rights, the waiver must be made knowingly and intelligently. Failure to notify suspects of their rights before interrogation could lead to statements being deemed inadmissible in court. However, cases such as Montejo v. Louisiana and Berghuis v. Thompkins further clarify the complexity of these rights and their waivers.
It's important to note that over 80% of suspects voluntarily waive their Miranda rights and many confess afterward. Such waivers, according to Montejo v. Louisiana, are still valid even if they occur after asserting the right to counsel in a preceding arraignment. Additionally, Salinas v. Texas emphasizes the need for an explicit invocation of the right to remain silent for it to be recognized. Law enforcement's interrogation tactics often play on suspects' emotions and psychology to procure voluntary statements, which underscores the critical need for suspects to understand and invoke their rights clearly.