Final answer:
The Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona extended the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination protection to all individuals subjected to custodial interrogation by requiring law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights. This decision enforced the use of Miranda Rights, ensuring that statements made during interrogation are voluntary and safeguarded against coercion.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Supreme Court, through its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, interpreted the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination to extend to all individuals questioned in connection with a crime. This landmark ruling mandatorily required law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights prior to interrogation, which include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. The Court emphasized the importance of these procedural safeguards to ensure that an individual's statements during custodial interrogation are truly voluntary and not coerced.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment was violated when suspects were not informed of their legal protections, leading to the establishment of Miranda Rights. In essence, the Court concluded that the police must demonstrate the use of effective procedural safeguards to secure the privilege against self-incrimination, making the issuance of Miranda warnings a critical component of lawful custodial interrogation.