Among many Warren Court decisions, the Court in Miranda v. Arizona ruled that all suspects must be read their rights before questioning. Origin of the case is 1963 when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, on charges of kidnapping and rape. At a Phoenix police station, Miranda was questioned by the police officers without being informed of his rights. After a few hours of questioning, the officers got a written confession signed by Miranda, which stated that the confession was voluntary and that Miranda signed it "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." During the trial, the written confession was used as evidence against Miranda. He was sentenced to twenty to thirty years.
Later, Miranda appealed his case to the Supreme Court, saying that he had never been told of any of his rights, such as the right during questioning. Fortunately, the Supreme Court changed the decision and stated that a suspect must be informed of his or her rights.
This ruling was supported by liberals, while criticized by conservatives. Liberals argued that it protected the right of all citizens for a fair trial by liming police power. Conservatives, on the other hand, claimed that this decision greatly made it difficult for the police to investigate crimes.
Since the case of Miranda v. Arizona, questioning always begins by a statement made by the officer, who states that a suspect has "the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions."
