Main case that deals with custodial investigation?

• A. Mapp v. Ohio
• B. Roe v. Wade
• C. Miranda v. Arizona
• D. Brown v. Board of Education

Answer: (C)

When a suspect is in custody and being questioned, constitutional safeguards require informing them of their rights before the interrogation begins. This standard was established by Miranda v. Arizona, which arose from custodial questioning conducted without warnings. The ruling created the now-familiar Miranda rights: the right to remain silent; that anything said can be used against the person in court; the right to consult with an attorney and have one present during questioning; and if the person cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed. These warnings are designed to protect against self-incrimination and ensure that any statements made are voluntary and reliable. If police do not provide these warnings before custodial interrogation, those statements are typically not admissible in court. The other cases listed address different constitutional issues—illegal-search protections in Mapp v. Ohio, abortion rights in Roe v. Wade, and school desegregation in Brown v. Board—so they do not establish the custodial-interrogation framework.