Which case requires informing suspects of rights during custodial interrogation?

• A. Katz v. United States
• B. Terry v. Ohio
• C. Miranda v. Arizona
• D. Mapp v. Ohio

Answer: (C)

Informing suspects of rights before custodial interrogation is a safeguard tied to protecting the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The case that established this requirement is Miranda v. Arizona, where the Supreme Court ruled that statements made during custodial questioning are admissible only after the suspect has been clearly informed of their rights and has either knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived them or obtained counsel. If the warnings aren’t given or the waiver isn’t valid, the statements are typically excluded from evidence. The other cases address different issues: Katz deals with privacy expectations under the Fourth Amendment, Terry with stops and frisks based on reasonable suspicion, and Mapp with the exclusionary rule and searches. So Miranda v. Arizona is the one that specifically requires informing suspects of rights during custodial interrogation.