The Supreme Court of the United States held that an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of the right to decline to make self-incriminatory statements and the right to legal counsel , and makes a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights.
It is supposed to be a safeguard against self-incrimination. As a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer the warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
What's the warning called? You would have heard it tonnes of times (Not the name. But the actual warning).
It is supposed to be a safeguard against self-incrimination. As a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer the warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
What's the warning called? You would have heard it tonnes of times (Not the name. But the actual warning).
