Which case is associated with the requirement for officers to inform suspects of their rights during custodial interviews?

The case related to the requirement for officers to inform suspects of their rights during custodial interviews is Miranda vs. Arizona. This landmark Supreme Court decision established that individuals in police custody must be made aware of their rights to maintain their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel.

The ruling specifically requires that before any interrogation begins, suspects must be informed of their rights, commonly referred to as "Miranda rights," which include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This protocol is crucial in ensuring that statements made by suspects during interrogation are admissible in court and that their constitutional rights are upheld. The implication of this decision has shaped law enforcement practices regarding how suspects are treated during the interrogation process, emphasizing the importance of informed consent and the safeguarding of individual rights in the criminal justice system.

In contrast, other cases listed have different focuses: Gideon vs. Wainwright addresses the right to legal counsel for indigent defendants, Terry vs. Ohio deals with stop-and-frisk procedures and reasonable suspicion, while Roe vs. Wade focuses on reproductive rights and does not pertain directly to law enforcement procedures regarding custodial interviews.