Which case established the right to counsel during custodial interrogation?

Which case established the right to counsel during custodial interrogation?

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

Answer: (D)

The concept being tested is the warning and protection of a suspect’s right to counsel during custodial interrogation. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that before a suspect is interrogated while in custody, police must inform them of their rights, including the right to consult with an attorney and to have one provided if they cannot afford one. If the suspect asks for an attorney, questioning must stop until an attorney is present. This decision established the now-familiar Miranda warnings and the rule that interrogation conducted without them can lead to statements being inadmissible. The other cases address different issues—Terry v. Ohio deals with stop-and-frisk, Graham v. Connor with the reasonableness of use of force, and Mapp v. Ohio with the exclusionary rule—so they do not establish the right to counsel during custodial interrogation.

The concept being tested is the warning and protection of a suspect’s right to counsel during custodial interrogation. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that before a suspect is interrogated while in custody, police must inform them of their rights, including the right to consult with an attorney and to have one provided if they cannot afford one. If the suspect asks for an attorney, questioning must stop until an attorney is present. This decision established the now-familiar Miranda warnings and the rule that interrogation conducted without them can lead to statements being inadmissible. The other cases address different issues—Terry v. Ohio deals with stop-and-frisk, Graham v. Connor with the reasonableness of use of force, and Mapp v. Ohio with the exclusionary rule—so they do not establish the right to counsel during custodial interrogation.