Final answer:
Interrogations should respect the Fifth Amendment rights of suspects by ensuring they are notified of their right to remain silent and to counsel. Supreme Court cases like Miranda v. Arizona have established these rights, which must be upheld during police interrogations to prevent violations that could render evidence inadmissible.
Step-by-step explanation:
The practice of police interrogation without notification of right to counsel and protections against self-incrimination is a significant legal issue addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in several landmark cases, including Miranda v. Arizona.
Suspects have the right to be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights, which include the right to remain silent and the right to legal representation. If these rights are violated, any statements made may be deemed inadmissible in court.
Moreover, Escobedo v. Illinois and In re Gault reinforced the necessity of these protections, especially Escobedo for affirming the right to speak to an attorney, and Gault for extending due process to juvenile defendants.
Situations like those in Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart illustrate violations of these rights, where defendants were not notified of their right to counsel during interrogations.
Michigan v. Jackson initially reinforced that any waiver of the right to counsel during police-initiated interrogations after an assertion of that right was invalid, although this stance was later overruled by Montejo v. Louisiana, which permitted a defendant to waive their right to counsel under certain circumstances even after asserting it.
Thus, when additional information is known or collected, interrogations should occur in a manner that respects the suspects' constitutional rights.