What must criminal suspects be informed of prior to police questioning according to Miranda vs. Arizona?

In the context of Miranda vs. Arizona, criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney prior to police questioning. This landmark Supreme Court decision established that individuals in custody must be made aware of their Miranda rights to ensure they are fully aware of their legal protections during interrogations. This right is vital because it allows suspects to have legal representation present, which can help protect their interests and ensure they understand the implications of their situation.

The requirement for informing suspects about their right to an attorney plays a crucial role in preventing coerced confessions and safeguarding the right to a fair trial. It empowers individuals to make informed decisions about whether to speak with law enforcement and to seek legal counsel to navigate the legal process. Understanding this right is essential for maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system.

While the other options mentioned (right to remain silent, right to bear arms, and right to a speedy trial) are important legal rights, they do not specifically fall under the requirements set forth in Miranda vs. Arizona with respect to what suspects must be informed about before police interrogation. The focus of the ruling is primarily on the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent.