A

Miranda’s rule is a notification and warning that, following United States law, regulates the arrest of suspects by law enforcement agencies. According to this rule, law enforcement officials must notify suspects of their rights and, in turn, should receive a positive answer to the question of whether the suspect understands what was said.

Explanation:

The Miranda rule was introduced by a decision of the US Supreme Court in 1966 to ensure the right of citizens not to testify against themselves. This legal claim was named after the historical case of Miranda v. Arizona on behalf of the accused Ernesto Miranda.

Miranda was arrested for abduction and rape in 1963. After the arrest and interrogation, his testimony and confession were used as evidence in court. After that, there was an appeal complaining that the use of this information as evidence violated the Fifth Amendment. After considering this issue, the court agreed and reviewed the case.

The result of this event was the introduction of the mandatory announcement of the rights of the suspect. Miranda’s rule includes two main points: the suspect must be informed of his right to silence and his right to have a lawyer. The first implies that any statement uttered by the suspect can be used against him in court.

As a result, the suspect can not testify against himself and answer questions that he finds uncomfortable or undesirable. The second right implies the right of the suspect to have a lawyer, separately hired or provided by the state. If the suspect requires a lawyer, the interrogation should be immediately suspended until the lawyer arrives.