What rule did Miranda v. Arizona establish for police interrogations?

In the 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court established that prosecutors may not use statements obtained from a suspect during custodial interrogation unless law enforcement followed specific procedural safeguards to protect the individual's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.12

Before questioning begins, police must clearly inform a suspect in custody of the following rights:
* The right to remain silent.31
* That any statement made can be used as evidence against them in court.31
* The right to consult with an attorney and have one present during interrogation.31
* That an attorney will be appointed if the suspect cannot afford one.31

The Court further ruled that if a suspect indicates in any manner that they wish to remain silent or consult with an attorney, questioning must cease. While suspects may waive these rights, any such waiver must be made "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently" to be valid for the purpose of using statements in court. These requirements serve as a vital safeguard to ensure that individuals are not compelled to incriminate themselves during police questioning.13