Four separate cases involving similar fact situations were consolidated because they presented the same constituitional question. In each case, police officers, detectives, or prosecuting attorneys took a defendant into custody and intterogated him in a police station to obtain a cobfession. In non of his rights at the outset of the interrogation. The interrogations produced oral admissions of guilt, all of which were used to convict them at their trails. The defendants appealed, arguing that the oficials should have warned them of their constituitional rights and the consequesces of waiving them before the question began. It was contented that to permit any statements obtained without such a warnung violated their Fifth Amendment priviledge against self-incrimination.

Were the defendant's constituional rights violated? Discuss