Answer:
This case regards the admissibility of a confession that is not given voluntarily. The fifth and sixth amendments protect the rights of citizens vis a vis law enforcement in this regard. It is a landmark case that still affects law enforcement procedures today.
Step-by-step explanation:
In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix. With only circumstantial evidence the interrogating officers got Miranda to sign a confession. Although the trial court decided that the confession was admissible, and this was upheld on appeal to the Arizona supreme court, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Miranda because no confession could be admissible under the self-incrimination clause and right to an attorney unless the person is made aware of their rights. Those are principles in the fifth and sixth ammendments of the Constitution. The Miranda ruling had a significant impact on law enforcement procedures in the United States. It was the foundation for what is now known as the Miranda warning, the statement that an arresting officer has to give to the suspect in order to inform them of their rights. Yes, the supreme court's decision seems right to me because all those who are arrested should be made aware of their rights because the police cannot have the power to detain and coerce people without cause in a just society.