Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before questioning. The case involved Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested and interrogated by police without being informed of his right to remain silent or to have an attorney present. After a two-hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to kidnapping and rape. However, his confession was later contested because he had not been informed of his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which protect against self-incrimination and guarantee the right to counsel.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not use Miranda’s confession as evidence because his rights had been violated. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination required law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before questioning. This led to the creation of the “Miranda rights,” which include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything said can be used against the suspect in court. The decision aimed to protect individuals’ constitutional rights during police interrogations and remains a cornerstone of criminal procedure in the United States.