Which case requires police to inform suspects of their rights before questioning?

• A. Gideon v. Wainwright
• B. Miranda v. Arizona
• C. Mapp v. Ohio
• D. Roe v. Wade

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is the requirement that police inform a suspect of their rights before questioning when the suspect is in custody. This rule comes from Miranda v. Arizona, which established that during custodial interrogation, suspects must be clearly informed of their rights—the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, with safeguards that anything said can be used against them in court. The purpose is to protect against self-incrimination and to ensure individuals understand they do not have to talk without legal protection.

Gideon v. Wainwright, by contrast, focuses on the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions, guaranteeing legal representation for those who cannot afford it, not on warnings before police questioning. Mapp v. Ohio deals with the exclusionary rule—evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court. Roe v. Wade concerns abortion rights. None of these establish the specific pre-questioning warnings, which is why Miranda v. Arizona is the correct reference for this scenario.