Which 1966 decision required police to inform suspects of their rights?

• A. Gideon v. Wainwright
• B. Mapp v. Ohio
• C. Miranda v. Arizona
• D. Terry v. Ohio

Answer: (C)

This question tests protecting a suspect’s rights during police questioning. In the 1966 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that when someone is in custody and being interrogated, police must inform them of their rights and obtain a voluntary waiver before questioning. This warning, known as the Miranda rights, includes the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present, with the assurance that anything said can be used in court. The goal is to prevent coerced or involuntary confessions and to make sure the suspect understands their protections.

Other famous cases address different protections: Gideon v. Wainwright guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases; Mapp v. Ohio applies the exclusionary rule to state courts; Terry v. Ohio allows stops and searches with reasonable suspicion. None of these establish the duty to inform suspects of their rights before questioning, which is specifically what Miranda v. Arizona did.