The obligation to inform a suspect of their rights under the Fifth Amendment arises during custodial interrogation. This legal requirement is triggered when law enforcement both takes a person into custody and subjects them to questioning. “Custody” implies a situation where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, which can manifest in formal arrest or other significant restraints on freedom of movement. “Interrogation” encompasses any direct questioning by law enforcement, as well as any words or actions that police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. For example, if an individual is arrested and placed in a police car, and then questioned about their involvement in a crime, the rights advisement is legally required.
Advising a suspect of these rights is a cornerstone of protecting individuals from self-incrimination and ensuring the integrity of legal proceedings. It stems from the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that statements obtained during custodial interrogation are admissible in court only if the suspect was informed of their rights and voluntarily waived them. Failure to adhere to this procedural safeguard can result in the suppression of evidence, potentially jeopardizing a criminal case. The ruling ensures due process and a fair trial.