Answered on
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is an important U.S. Supreme Court case because it established the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before interrogation. Specifically, the decision led to the creation of what are now known as Miranda rights, a set of protections against self-incrimination and mistreatment by police. These include the right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination, the right to be reminded that anything said can and will be used against the suspect in a court of law, and the right to have an attorney present during interrogation. If an attorney cannot be afforded, one will be appointed to the suspect. This case significantly strengthened the Fifth Amendment rights of individuals in the United States.
The case itself involved Ernesto Miranda, who was convicted of kidnapping and rape based on a confession he had given under police interrogation without being informed of his right to counsel or his right to remain silent. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that without these warnings, Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence, effectively overturning his conviction. As a result, law enforcement agencies across the United States must now ensure that suspects are aware of their rights before custodial interrogations begin.