Final answer:
An officer under investigation has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, as affirmed by Miranda v. Arizona and other case laws. These rights are integral to constitutional protections and cannot be grounds for punishment when invoked. Legal precedents have elaborated on the conditions under which these rights apply.
Step-by-step explanation:
An officer under investigation for criminal violations has constitutional rights protected under various landmark decisions. One fundamental right is the right to remain silent, as stated in Miranda v. Arizona. The suspect must receive the Admonition of Rights, commonly known as the Miranda Warning, which informs the individual of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. Exercising these rights cannot be used as a basis for punishment; doing so would violate constitutional protections. Furthermore, the suspect's right to an attorney was confirmed in Escobedo v. Illinois, underlining the importance of legal representation in the face of custodial interrogation.
Additionally, laws have evolved regarding the invocation of the right to remain silent. For example, Berghuis v. Thompkins ruled that this right does not exist unless a suspect clearly asserts it. Moreover, Salinas v. Texas highlighted that the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause doesn't cover a person's silent refusal to answer police questions before arrest or a Miranda warning unless expressly invoked.
These rights are meant to protect individuals from self-incrimination and guarantee fair legal proceedings. Officers under investigation, like any other persons, are entitled to these rights, and the sanctity of these rights is preserved across various legal scenarios to ensure justice is duly served