Which case established the need for police to advise suspects of their rights before interrogation?

The case that established the necessity for police to inform suspects of their rights before interrogation is Miranda v. Arizona. This landmark decision came about in 1966 and focuses on the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. The Supreme Court held that in order to protect suspects' rights, law enforcement must provide a warning about the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney before any custodial interrogation.

This ruling was based on the understanding that without such a warning, any statements made by a suspect could be deemed inadmissible in court since they may not be made voluntarily. The decision aimed to ensure that suspects are aware of their rights and can make informed choices during questioning.

The other cases mentioned do not specifically address the requirement for informing suspects of their rights in the same manner as Miranda v. Arizona does. While Escobedo v. Illinois also deals with the rights of the accused, it centers on the right to counsel during interrogation, laying some groundwork for Miranda. However, it does not create the standard that interrogations must be preceded by a statement of rights. Michigan v. Summerville and Schulz v. Long are not significant in this context regarding the advisement of rights before interrogation.