How did Miranda v. Arizona protect people questioned while in police custody?

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court established procedural safeguards to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for individuals in police custody. The Court ruled that prosecutors may not use statements obtained during custodial interrogation unless police first inform the suspect of their rights, now known as the Miranda warnings.123

These warnings ensure that a suspect is aware of the following:
* The right to remain silent.13
* That any statement made may be used as evidence against them.13
* The right to have an attorney present during questioning.13
* That an attorney will be appointed if the suspect cannot afford one.13

The ruling mandates that if a suspect indicates a desire to remain silent or consult an attorney, questioning must cease. These protections were designed to prevent coerced confessions and ensure that any waiver of rights is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. While subsequent Supreme Court decisions have created exceptions to these requirements, the warnings remain a fundamental component of U.S. criminal procedure.132