In which case did the supreme court rule that police must inform criminal suspects of their legal rights upon their arrest

The case in which the Supreme Court ruled that police must inform criminal suspects of their legal rights upon their arrest was Miranda v. Arizona.

Explanation:

In 1963, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for robbery, kidnapping and sexual assault. He was interrogated by the police and immediately confessed. During the trial, the prosecutor only offered Miranda's confession as evidence. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and sexual assault, and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda's lawyer appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, but was dismissed. Then he appealed to the Supreme Court.

President Earl Warren, a former prosecutor, announced the court's verdict: Due to the compulsive nature of police interrogations, no confession can be granted unless the suspect has previously been instructed about his rights as set forth in the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution. Accordingly, Miranda's sentence was overturned.

After the verdict, police officers nationwide were trained to educate suspects of their rights when arrested. This obligation to provide information is known today as the Miranda Warning.

apartheid, (afrikaans: “apartness”) policy that governed relations between south africa's white minority and nonwhite majority and sanctioned racial segregation and political and economic discrimination against nonwhites. people should not get this wrong. i was just answering a question.

so they can differentiate themselves from others as they saw themselves as the superior race. the star was basically a symbol that meant you are a less of a person than i am because of my race. the star was also degrading for those who had to wear it because they were aware of this and the nazis used the notion to make them feel less like a person.