A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Miranda v. Arizona is a Supreme Court case that established the Miranda rights. These rights require that individuals who are being interrogated by the police must be informed of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney. If these rights are not provided, any statements made during the interrogation cannot be used in court.

Example: If a police officer arrests someone and begins questioning them without informing them of their Miranda rights, any statements made during that interrogation cannot be used as evidence in court.

Explanation: The Miranda rights were established to protect individuals from being coerced into making self-incriminating statements during police interrogations. By informing individuals of their rights, they are able to make an informed decision about whether or not to speak to the police and can exercise their right to remain silent or request an attorney if they choose to do so.

Additional Example: If a suspect is being interrogated and they waive their Miranda rights, they can still choose to exercise those rights later in the interrogation if they change their mind.

Explanation: The Miranda rights are in effect throughout the entire interrogation process, even if the individual initially waives their rights. This means that if they change their mind later on, they can still choose to remain silent or request an attorney.

Note: It is important to note that a recent Supreme Court opinion in 2022, Vega v. Tekoh, has limited the ability to bring a § 1983 claim for violating Miranda rights. This means that officers who fail to inform individuals of their Miranda rights may have qualified immunity.