Which ruling requires warnings before custodial interrogation?

• A. Terry v. Ohio
• B. Miranda v. Arizona
• C. Graham v. Connor
• D. Minnesota v. Dickerson

Answer: (B)

The requirement to give warnings before custodial interrogation comes from Miranda v. Arizona. In that ruling, the court held that a person must be informed of their rights—specifically the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney—and that any statements made during custodial interrogation are admissible only if the person knowingly waives those rights. This safeguard ensures that individuals are Temp asked to speak with police are not coerced into self-incrimination and that their waiver is voluntary.

Statements obtained without proper warnings and a valid waiver are generally excluded from evidence in court, which is a central reason this ruling is so important in police procedure.

Terry v. Ohio deals with stopping and frisking based on reasonable suspicion, not with warnings before interrogation. Graham v. Connor addresses the reasonableness of police use of force. Minnesota v. Dickerson concerns what can be seized or admitted when a frisk reveals contraband. These cases cover different aspects of policing and rights, not the warning requirement tied to custodial interrogation.