Final answer:
The Supreme Court requires that individuals be informed of their right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination, as seen in Miranda v. Arizona. This right, embodied in the Miranda Rights, is integral to custodial interrogations to prevent coercion. Later cases clarified the need to explicitly invoke the right to remain silent.
Explanation:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the police must inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment rights, including the right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination during custodial interrogations, as established in the landmark case, Miranda v. Arizona.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides individuals protection against self-incrimination, often referred to as "taking the Fifth." This right ensures that individuals may refuse to answer questions from the government that could lead to criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court expanded upon this right in the 1920s, invalidating convictions where evidence was gained through coercion. A significant development occurred with the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, which mandated that suspects must be made aware of their rights before police interrogation. This ruling led to the implementation of what are now known as the Miranda Rights, ensuring suspects know of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. The Court's decision in this case emphasized the necessity for procedural safeguards to protect the privilege against self-incrimination and noted the psychological pressure of in-custody interrogations.
Later cases, such as Berghuis v. Thompkins and Salinas v. Texas, further clarified that the right to remain silent must be explicitly invoked by the suspect, as opposed to standing mute or refusing to answer pre-arrest questions without an explicit declaration of this right.