In custody interrogation, the interrogator must comply with the provisions of which case?

• A. Mapp v. Ohio
• B. Duncan v. Louisiana
• C. Miranda v. Arizona
• D. Escobedo v. Illinois

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that when a person is in custody and being questioned, law enforcement must provide the suspect with a specific set of rights before questioning begins. This requirement comes from Miranda v. Arizona, which established the warnings: the right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against the person, the right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during questioning, and that if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed. Any waiver of these rights must be knowing and voluntary, and if the suspect invokes the right to silence or to counsel, questioning must stop.

Other cases address different issues: Escobedo v. Illinois dealt with the right to counsel during interrogation but did not establish the general warning rule; Mapp v. Ohio concerns the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence; Duncan v. Louisiana concerns the right to a jury trial. Miranda v. Arizona is the one that specifically governs custodial interrogation and the warnings that must be given.