Which case established the requirement to inform suspects of rights before questioning?

Which case established the requirement to inform suspects of rights before questioning?

• A. Terry v. Ohio
• B. Miranda v. Arizona
• C. Graham v. Connor
• D. Mapp v. Ohio

Answer: (B)

The main concept here is the requirement for informing a person in custody of their rights before questioning, known as the Miranda warnings. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that custodial interrogations must include clear notices of the right to remain silent and to have an attorney, with the understanding that anything said can be used against the suspect and that counsel will be provided if they cannot afford one. The interrogation must stop if the suspect invokes the right to silence or the right to counsel, and statements obtained without proper warnings (or a valid waiver) may be excluded from evidence. The focus on custody matters because the warnings apply specifically when a person is not free to leave. Other cases address different protections—such as Terry v. Ohio, which concerns stop-and-frisk rules; Graham v. Connor, which deals with use-of-force standards; and Mapp v. Ohio, which deals with the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence—rather than the advisement of rights before questioning.

The main concept here is the requirement for informing a person in custody of their rights before questioning, known as the Miranda warnings. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that custodial interrogations must include clear notices of the right to remain silent and to have an attorney, with the understanding that anything said can be used against the suspect and that counsel will be provided if they cannot afford one. The interrogation must stop if the suspect invokes the right to silence or the right to counsel, and statements obtained without proper warnings (or a valid waiver) may be excluded from evidence. The focus on custody matters because the warnings apply specifically when a person is not free to leave. Other cases address different protections—such as Terry v. Ohio, which concerns stop-and-frisk rules; Graham v. Connor, which deals with use-of-force standards; and Mapp v. Ohio, which deals with the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence—rather than the advisement of rights before questioning.