Which case warned about self-incrimination during police interrogations?

The case that warned about self-incrimination during police interrogations is Miranda v. Arizona. This landmark Supreme Court decision established the principle that individuals taken into police custody must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, before any interrogation begins.

The significance of this ruling lies in the Court's recognition that the coercive nature of custodial interrogation can lead to self-incrimination, which violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Miranda warnings are meant to protect suspects from being compelled to provide testimony against themselves, ensuring that any confession or statement given is done with an understanding of their legal rights.

In contrast, the other cases listed do not focus on the issue of self-incrimination during police interrogations. Tennessee v. Garner addresses the use of deadly force by law enforcement, Roper v. Simmons deals with the constitutionality of the death penalty for juvenile offenders, and Atkins v. Virginia concerns the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Each of these cases serves important legal principles but does not relate directly to the protocols established for protecting individuals from self-incrimination in the context of police questioning.