Paul Cassell wrote a 1996 article about the “social cost” of this Supreme Court case. An opinion in this case argued for a “more traditional, pliable” method of administering the Due Process clause by citing the “totality of the circumstances” doctrine outlined in Haynes v. Washington. In a famous partial dissent, Justice Tom C. Clark claimed that the majority opinion in this case went “too far too fast.” This case’s decision was upheld in Dickerson v. US (-5[1])and was preceded by Escobedo v. Illinois, which provided for the presence of counsel (10[1])during police interrogation. (10[3]-5[1])For 10 (10[1])points, name this 1966 court case, which required police officers to inform (10[1])suspects of namesake “rights” (10[1])such as the right to remain silent. ■END■ (10[1])