Ariz. (1966). As a result of this case, the Supreme Court developed the Miranda Warnings and the “bright line” rule to be applied during custodial interrogations of suspects, 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 from television programs or even being recited while under arrest. Why are police officers required to recite these rights to a suspect? Where do 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 of an interrogation. However, clear rules represent the suspect's rights, but officers are not required to inform suspects of these rights. These bright rules include; suspects may decide to remain silent, at any time the suspect decides to stop talking, or the suspect decides he needs a lawyer, the interrogation must stop. immediately. However, if a suspect stops talking and asks for a lawyer, he must be direct in his statement. “I think I may need a lawyer now” is not enough to invoke their rights Just as in Berghuis v. Thompkins it is stated that a suspect of a crime must “speak openly” to invoke his right to remain