Final answer:
It is true that efforts should be made to identify if a suspect has been previously interviewed or interrogated to ensure their rights are protected. Such efforts are aligned with the rulings of cases like Miranda v. Arizona, which maintain that suspects need to be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to counsel, prior to questioning, to comply with the Fifth Amendment.
Step-by-step explanation:
True, before conducting an interrogation, an effort should indeed be made to determine if the suspect has been interviewed or interrogated previously. This practice is crucial to upholding a suspect's rights as outlined in cases such as Miranda v. Arizona, where police are required to inform suspects of their rights to counsel and protection against self-incrimination before interrogation. Failure to do so can lead to a violation of the Fifth Amendment and render any obtained confession inadmissible in court.
Cases such as Escobedo v. Illinois affirm that a person in police custody has the right to speak to an attorney and that this right is protected under the Constitution. In line with these rulings, it is not just ethical but also a legal necessity that law enforcement officials determine the interrogation history of a suspect to ensure that previous interrogations have not infringed upon their constitutional rights.