Which U.S. Supreme Court case set the precedent for advising persons in police custody of their rights?

• A. Mapp v. Ohio
• B. Miranda v. Arizona
• C. Gideon v. Wainwright
• D. Katz v. United States

Answer: (B)

The main concept being tested is the requirement that police inform individuals in custody of their rights before interrogation, as established by the Miranda decision. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive, so to protect the suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, law enforcement must deliver a warning about rights. The warning typically includes the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used in court, the right to consult with a lawyer and have one present during questioning, and that a lawyer will be provided if the person cannot afford one. A person can choose to waive these rights knowingly and voluntarily and agree to be questioned, or interrogation must wait until rights are waived or counsel is present. This ruling ensures that statements obtained during police questioning are voluntary and reliable.

Mapp v. Ohio concerns the exclusionary rule, which bars evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being used in court. Gideon v. Wainwright guarantees the right to an attorney in criminal prosecutions, but not the advisement of rights in custody. Katz v. United States deals with privacy expectations under the Fourth Amendment in surveillance situations, not the Miranda warnings.