Final answer:
The Supreme Court case that established that the police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogation to prevent self-incrimination is Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
This case is pivotal in reinforcing the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and established what is now called Miranda rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court Case Regarding Police Interrogation and Self-Incrimination
The Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of words or actions by the police that could elicit an incriminating response from a suspect and constituted an interrogation is Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
In this landmark case, the Court held that prosecutors could not use statements from custodial interrogations unless they had demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards to secure the suspect's privilege against self-incrimination.
The Court identified the necessity of police providing warnings to suspects, which include the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present, now widely known as the Miranda rights. This critical decision ensured that confessions and other admissions were made voluntarily and with a full understanding of one's legal rights.
These protections are recognized as foundational to upholding the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination. The Miranda decision ushered in a new standard by which police interrogations are judged, setting clear guidelines for protecting suspects' constitutional rights during the high-pressure situation of a police interrogation.
The importance of the Miranda case cannot be overstated; its impact reshaped the criminal justice system and police procedures. Hence, the requirement for the police to inform a suspect of their rights, ensuring that a suspect's statements are the product of their free and deliberate choice, is now an inherent part of law enforcement protocols.