In which case must Miranda warnings be provided?

Miranda warnings must be provided when an individual is in custody and before any interrogation takes place. This requirement stems from the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which established that custodial interrogation can pose a significant risk of coercion, leading to self-incrimination. Consequently, to protect an individual's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, law enforcement must inform them of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

The concept of "custody" refers to a situation where a reasonable person would feel that they are not free to leave, which may occur even without a formal arrest. This means that whenever a suspect is in a position where they are not free to leave and they are being interrogated by law enforcement, Miranda warnings must be given prior to any questioning to ensure that any statement made thereafter is admissible in court.

In contrast, scenarios like simply being arrested or the nature of government interviews without the element of custody do not trigger the requirement for Miranda warnings, nor does the request for an attorney alone serve as a condition for their issuance. Thus, the key factor is the combination of custody and interrogation that mandates the provision of these warnings.