What requirement is established by Miranda v. Arizona?

The requirement established by Miranda v. Arizona focuses on the necessity for law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights when they are in custody and about to be interrogated. This case arose from concerns regarding the coercive nature of police interrogations and the importance of protecting individuals from self-incrimination.

When someone is taken into custody, they must be made aware of their rights, which include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. This is intended to ensure that suspects understand their rights and the potential consequences of waiving those rights during interrogations.

The other options do not align with the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. For instance, the assertion that rights must be available at any time during a trial does not specifically address custody and interrogation. Similarly, allowing accused individuals to make phone calls immediately is not mandated by this ruling, nor does it relate to informing them of their rights. Lastly, law enforcement conducting interrogations without advising suspects undermines the core principle established by the case, which is to protect individuals' rights during potentially involuntary recent interrogations.