Which case determined that a suspect's statement made during an interrogation could be deemed inadmissible if the suspect was not informed of their rights?

The case that determined a suspect's statement made during an interrogation could be deemed inadmissible if the suspect was not informed of their rights is Vignera v. New York. This landmark decision is part of a series of cases that establish the necessity of informing individuals of their rights during police interrogations, particularly the right to counsel and the right to remain silent, also known as Miranda rights.

In Vignera v. New York, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a confession elicited from a suspect without informing them of these rights can be used in court. The ruling emphasized that failing to inform the suspect adequately undermines the legality of the confession, as it can lead to coercion and the violation of constitutional rights. The significance of this case laid the groundwork for further developments in law enforcement practices regarding the questioning of suspects, ensuring that confessions obtained under these conditions are more reliably scrutinized within the judicial system.