Which Supreme Court decision clarified suspects' rights during stops and questioning?

• A. Graham v Connor
• B. Terry v OH
• C. Miranda v AZ
• D. TN v Garner

Answer: (C)

Miranda rights come from a ruling that established the requirement to inform someone of their rights before custodial interrogation. This means when a person is in custody and being questioned by police, they must be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to consult with an attorney, with an attorney provided if they cannot afford one. The person must knowingly and voluntarily waive these rights before questioning starts. If the police fail to give these warnings, any statements obtained may be excluded from evidence, protecting the suspect’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and helping ensure that confessions are voluntary and reliable. The other cases address different police actions—Terry v. Ohio deals with stop-and-frisk authority during stops, while Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner concern use of force, not rights advised during questioning. So the decision clarifying suspects’ rights during stops and questioning is Miranda v. Arizona.