Miranda v. Arizona Case Ruling

Hard Unit 3: Civil Liberties & Rights Landmark Supreme Court Cases

In the landmark Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Court addressed the procedural safeguards required to protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination while in police custody. Ernesto Miranda had confessed to crimes without being informed of his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during interrogation. This case established the requirement for law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights. Which of the following statements best captures the Court's ruling in this case?

The Court ruled that confessions obtained without informing suspects of their rights were admissible under state law.

The Court held that police must provide a written statement of rights to suspects before interrogation.

The Court established that suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and to an attorney before interrogation.

The Court determined that Miranda's confession was coerced, invalidating all confessions made without legal counsel.

Hint

Submitted1.5K

Correct1.4K

% Correct98%