Which case held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning?

• A. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
• B. Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
• C. Graham v. Connor (1989)
• D. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Answer: (A)

When a suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation, police must issue Miranda warnings. This requirement protects the suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The warning informs the person that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to consult with an attorney; if they cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided. Importantly, questioning must stop if the suspect requests an attorney, and any later questioning typically requires a fresh waiver of rights.

This specific rule was established to ensure that statements obtained during interrogation are truly voluntary and not the result of coercion or ignorance of rights. The other cases listed involve different constitutional issues—use of force in confrontations and the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of rights—so they do not address the requirement to inform suspects of rights prior to questioning.