In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), why did Ernesto Miranda say his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated? He had been stopped and searched without a judge issuing a proper warrant. He had been tried for serious crimes without a grand jury issuing an indictment. He had confessed to crimes without being reminded of his right to avoid self-incrimination. He had been jailed without being informed of the charges against him.

Miranda believed that his rights had been violated because he was interrogated and gave a confession without being told that he had the right to an attorney and the right to avoid self incrimination.

The correct answer is: "He had confessed to crimes without being reminded of his right to avoid self-incrimination".

Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark decision enacted by the US Supreme Court in 1966. The court concluded that inculpatory or exculpatory information that had been pronounced under policy custody, will only be admissible at trial if the prosecution can prove that the defendant was properly informed of his rights when he was arrested. Those rights include the one of counting with an attorney before and during the questioning and of the right against self-incrimination. Otherwise, the rights provided by the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution would be violated.