The correct answer is Miranda v Arizona.
I'm surprised. I never knew you were an ACLU supporter. After all, they had argued in that case that a free station-house lawyer should be readily available to the suspect and that instead of being merely advised that they suspects could make use of a lawyer, that they be strongly recommended to make use of one, two positions that the Warren court rejected.
More seriously, I would have thought with your obsession over wasteful spending on public employees, you'd think Gideon v. Wainwright, with its mandate of publicly provided defense attorneys to the indigent in felony cases would be a more serious fault, but perhaps your mania on that subject extends only to public school teachers. (Or maybe I'm confusing you with another poster, in which case I apologize, tho I won't say to whom. 
)
Gideon v Wainwright is a colossal waste of precious and scarce taxpayer resources but at least has some textual basis in the Constitution.
Miranda rights, on top of being foolish and unnecessary, has created a bizarre framework with terrorists. Even this administration attempts to bypass them when necessary in a relatively arbitrary manner. It would be far more logical to simply define the 5th amendment as prohibiting coerced confessions and there would be no such need to bypass anything.
Indeed, the ruling has led to bizarre results such as the 14 day rule enacted a couple years ago. Congress too decided that it did not want it.
