Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is best known for establishing which concept?

• A. Suspects must be read their Miranda Rights
• B. The right to counsel at questioning
• C. Seizure of evidence without probable cause
• D. Double jeopardy protection

Answer: (A)

Miranda v. Arizona centers on protecting a suspect’s constitutional rights during custodial interrogation. The ruling requires police to inform a person of their right to remain silent and their right to have an attorney present, and it holds that any statements made while in custody without these warnings are generally inadmissible unless the person knowingly and voluntarily waives those rights. This is why recognizing that suspects must be read their Miranda Rights is the best answer—the decision is famous precisely for establishing these warnings and the associated evidentiary rule.

The other concepts don’t fit as the core idea here: the right to counsel at questioning is part of the warnings but not the sole focus; Miranda is about informing rights and the admissibility of statements. Seizure of evidence without probable cause relates to unreasonable searches and seizures, not the interrogation rights addressed by Miranda. Double jeopardy protection is a separate constitutional issue unrelated to this ruling.