Which case established that a person in custody must be warned of certain rights before any questioning by law enforcement officials occurs?

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

Answer: (D)

The essential idea is that when someone is in custody and being questioned, they must be informed of their rights before any questioning begins. This safeguard comes from Miranda v. Arizona, which held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires police to warn a person in custody of their rights and obtain a voluntary, knowing waiver before interrogation. The warnings include 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 that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided. If the rights aren’t properly conveyed and a waiver isn’t voluntary, the statements obtained are typically excluded from evidence. Other famous cases address different protections—Gideon v. Wainwright ensures the right to counsel at trial, Mapp v. Ohio establishes the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence, and Terry v. Ohio allows police to stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion—so Miranda specifically targets the warnings before custodial interrogation.