Answer:
d. confirmed the obligation of police to inform arrested suspects of their rights before questioning
Explanation:
The conflict of this case originated on March 13, 1963, when a Phoenix resident, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested for being suspect of r.pe and kidnapping. In the police station, he was questioned by police officers and within two hours, he confessed to committing the crimes.
However, in Court, Miranda alleged that his confession should not to be used against him at trial because he hadn't been informed of his rights to avoid self-incrimination prior police interrogation, as the 5th Amendment guarantees. Likewise, he had not been advised of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation as guaranteed in the 6th Amendment. Therefore, this case confirmed the obligation of police to inform arrested suspects of their rights before questioning.
