Which case deals with the admissibility of confessions and addresses custody, interrogation, warning, and waiver?

• A. Miranda v. Arizona
• B. North Carolina v Butler
• C. Missouri v Seibert
• D. Berghuis v Thompkins

Answer: (A)

The essential idea here is how warnings, custody, interrogation, and the ability to waive rights determine whether a confession can be used in court. Miranda v. Arizona established that when a person is in custody and subject to police interrogation, officers must inform them of their rights—the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. Any waiver of those rights must be voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently made, and statements obtained without proper warnings or a valid waiver are generally inadmissible. This case sets the standard for when warnings are required and how a confession becomes admissible or not.

Other cases build on or refine aspects of this framework but don’t establish the warning-and-waiver rule itself. North Carolina v. Butler deals with how a suspect can waive counsel, including implied waivers, rather than the initial custodial warnings. Missouri v. Seibert addresses the complex issue of whether a second confession obtained after a prior interrogation without warnings can be admitted, focusing on a two-step questioning process rather than the basic warning obligation. Berghuis v. Thompkins clarifies that remaining silent does not automatically invoke the right to cease interrogation; a clear invocation is required to stop questioning, and silence alone isn’t enough to create or negate a waiver.