Answer:
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) is a historical case examined by the Supreme Court. By a decision in this case, the court established that any evidence, whether confessing or exculpatory, can be used in court only if the prosecution can prove that the suspect was informed before the interrogation about the right to a lawyer and about the right not to testify against himself. At the same time, in case of refusal of the suspect from his rights, it is necessary to prove its voluntariness. The Miranda case set a precedent requiring all police departments to inform detainees of their rights to a lawyer and silence. These warnings are called the Miranda rule. The Supreme Court equated the Miranda Rule with constitutional acts.
Explanation:
They ruled that the freedom of speech protection afforded in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment could be restricted if the words spoken or printed represented to society a "clear and present danger."
