Arizona (1966). As a result of this case, the Supreme Court developed Miranda warnings and the "bright line" rule to be applied while suspects are being questioned in custody, to prevent involuntary confessions. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. Everyone knows the Miranda warnings, whether from TV shows or even when they were recited during his arrest. Why are police officers required to recite these rights to a suspect? Where did they come from? What happens if an officer or detective fails to inform a suspect of these rights? The Miranda warning must be given before the interrogation. However, the clear rules concern the suspect's rights, but officers are not required to inform suspects of those rights. These clear rules include: Suspects may choose to remain silent; At any time the suspect decides to stop talking or the suspect decides he needs an attorney, the interrogation must stop immediately. However, if a suspect stops talking and asks for a lawyer, he should be direct in his statement. “I think I may need a lawyer now” is not enough to invoke their rights. Otherwise, the officers can continue their questioning. As in the case law Berghuis v. Thompkins, crime suspect must 'speak out' to invoke right to stay.