Which of the following rights must be read to suspects according to court ruling?

The requirement to read specific rights to suspects comes from the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). This ruling established that individuals taken into police custody must be informed of certain rights to ensure that any statements made during questioning are voluntary and not coerced.

The rights that must be communicated to suspects include the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. When a suspect is informed that they have the right to an attorney, it acknowledges their ability to have legal representation during questioning. Additionally, informing them of their right to remain silent emphasizes that they do not have to provide self-incriminating statements.

These two rights are fundamental to the protection against self-incrimination and the right to legal counsel, both of which are enshrined in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The requirement to read these rights ensures that individuals are aware of their legal protections and can make informed decisions during police interrogations. Therefore, the combination of the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent is what must be conveyed to suspects, confirming the correctness of the provided answer.