In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Ernesto Miranda claimed his Fifth Amendment rights were violated because he confessed to crimes without being informed of his right to avoid self-incrimination. This case established the requirement that suspects must be informed of their rights before interrogation, reshaping law enforcement practices. The ruling ensured that confessions are voluntary and legally admissible. ;
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Ernesto Miranda claimed his Fifth Amendment rights were violated because he confessed to crimes without being informed of his right to avoid self-incrimination. The Supreme Court ruling established the requirement that suspects must be informed of their rights before interrogation. This changed law enforcement practices by ensuring confessions are voluntary and legally admissible.
;