Final answer:
Police practices that involve interrogating individuals without informing them of their rights to counsel and against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment, as established by Miranda v. Arizona and other key Supreme Court cases.
Step-by-step explanation:
The practice of police interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination is indeed a violation of the Fifth Amendment. This conclusion is supported by a series of landmark Supreme Court cases, most notably Miranda v. Arizona, which established the requirement for police to advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights before an interrogation begins. This decision was based on the understanding that custodial interrogations are inherently coercive and that procedural safeguards are necessary to protect the privilege against self-incrimination.
In the cases of Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart, suspects were not informed of their rights while in custody, leading the Court to rule that any statements obtained during such interrogations cannot be used in a court of law. This is underscored by the decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, which articulated the right to counsel for individuals in police custody. The underlying principle is that the suspect's understanding of their rights is critical to a fair interrogation process.